Court Opinion

ID: 9513432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:35:33.858274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:51.606346
License: Public Domain

MARING, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[¶ 42] I concur in the majority’s conclusion N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02 does not affect Farmers’ obligation to pay no-fault benefits. I dissent from the majority’s opinion concluding N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02 has superseded the common law rule that a tortfeasor cannot reduce his own liability by showing those who medically treat the injured person were negligent in providing such treatment.
[¶ 43] The majority inteiprets N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02 to not “impose liability on an original tortfeasor for an intervening cause like medical malpractice that the original tortfeasor was deemed to foresee under common law.” To reach this interpretation, the majority concludes the statute is unambiguous because N.D.C.C. § 32-03.23-02 includes the term “malpractice” in the definition of “fault” and requires the apportionment of fault and damages according to the percentage of fault attributable to each “person, whether or not a party, who contributed to the injury.” In my opinion, however, the Legislature’s intent cannot be unambiguously ascertained from this statute’s language.
[¶ 44] Our primary purpose in construing a statute is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent. Kinney Shoe Corp. v. State, 552 N.W.2d 788 (N.D.1996). When a statute is ambiguous, we look to various extrinsic aids, such as the legislative history, the object sought to be attained, or the circumstances under which the statute was enacted, in our determination of legislative intent. See N.D.C.C. § 1-02-39. Statutes should be considered “as a whole and in relation to other provisions, with each provision harmonized, if possible, to avoid conflicts.” Dundee Mutual Ins. Co. v. Balvitsch, 540 N.W.2d 609, 612 (N.D.1995).
[¶ 45] In 1987 the Legislature enacted a number of statutes as “tort reforms.” The tort reform movement was intended to reduce “frivolous” litigation and improve the method of allocating responsibility for and *393paying of damages. See Target Stores v. Automated Maintenance Serv., Inc., 492 N.W.2d 899, 902 (N.D.1992). As a result, joint liability of concurrent tortfeasors was changed to several liability in the absence of “in concert” action. Id.; 1987 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 404, §§ 2 and 3; N.D.C.C. §§ 32-03.2-02 and 32-03.2-03. This “tort reform” was effective until June 30, 1993, when it was set to expire. 1987 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 404, § 15. In 1993, the Legislature repealed the sunset provision, repealed N.D.C.C. §§ 9—10—07 and § 32-03-07, and amended and reenacted N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02 relating to modified comparative fault and the elimination of joint liability for concurrent tortfeasors. 1993 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 324, §§ 1, 2, and 5.
[¶ 46] As noted by the majority, the modified comparative fault statutes revised tort liability in our state, shifting the focus from traditional tort doctrines to the singular inclusive concept of “fault.” “Fault” is defined in N.D.C.C. §§ 32-03.2-01 and -02:
§ 32-03.2-01. Definition. As used in this chapter, “fault” includes acts or omissions that are in any measure negligent or reckless towards the person or property of the actor or others, or that subject a person to tort liability or dram shop liability. The term also includes strict liability for product defect, breach of warranty, negligence or assumption of risk, misuse of a product for tuhich the defendant otherwise would be liable, and failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid an injury or to mitigate damages. Legal requirements of causal relation apply both to fault as the basis for liability and to contributory fault. (Emphasis added.)
§ 32-03.2-02. Modified comparative fault.
[[Image here]]
Under this section, fault includes negligence, malpractice, absolute liability, dram shop liability, failure to warn, reckless or willful conduct, assumption of risk, misuse of product, failure to avoid injury, and product liability, including product liability involving negligence or strict liability or breach of warranty for product defect. (Emphasis added.)
It is unclear why “malpractice” was included in the definition of “fault” in the modified comparative fault statute but not included in the statute specifically defining the term “fault.” The inconsistent definitions of “fault” create an ambiguity and do not enable us to ascertain the clear intent of the Legislature from the plain language of the statute, especially when the effect of that interpretation is to abrogate long held principles of traditional tort doctrine.
[¶ 47] Further ambiguity arises when one considers the common law rule — that original tortfeasors are liable for the foreseeable negligence of reasonably selected medical care providers — is premised on principles of proximate causation. In Polucha v. Landes, 60 N.D. 159, 233 N.W. 264, 268 (1930), this Court reasoned “[i]t is, therefore, not such an independent, intervening act of a third party as to break the chain of causation between the primary injury and the ultimate consequence or result.” (Emphasis added.) In other words, the original tortfeasor is liable for subsequent negligent medical treatment because such a consequence is foreseeable as a matter of law. The New Mexico Supreme Court aptly summarized the rule:
When a person causes an injury to another which requires medical treatment, it is foreseeable that the treatment, whether provided properly or negligently, will cause additional harm. Ash v. Mortensen, 24 Cal.2d 654, 150 P.2d 876, 877 (1944); see also Keeton et al. § 44, at 309 (“It would be an undue compliment to the medical profession to say that bad surgery is no part of the risk of a broken leg.”). Thus, premised upon the concept that the original tort is a proximate cause of the harm attributable to negligent treatment, courts have held the original tortfeasor liable both for the original injury and for the harm caused by negligent medical treatment. (Citations omitted.)
Lujan v. Healthsouth Rehabilitation Corp., 120 N.M. 422, 902 P.2d 1025, 1029 (1995) (emphasis added). In this regard, I do not understand the majority characterizing subsequent negligence by a treating physician to be an “intervening” cause.
*394[¶ 48] Because the Polucha rule is a principle of proximate causation and N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-01 provides that the “legal requirements of causal relation apply both to fault as the basis for liability and to contributory fault,” I cannot agree the unambiguous intent of the Legislature was to abrogate the Polucha rule when it enacted the modified comparative fault statute. Cf. Stewart v. Ryan, 520 N.W.2d 39, 51 (N.D.1994) (Levine, J., concurring) (“[t]he change from contributory negligence to modified comparative fault had no effect on proximate causation requirements”).
[¶ 49] When a statute is ambiguous we look to various extrinsic aids, such as the legislative history, the circumstances under which the statute was enacted, or the object sought to be attained in our determination of legislative intent. See N.D.C.C. § 1-02-39. The legislative history of the 1987 tort reform provisions shed no light on the issue of whether the Legislature clearly intended to abrogate the common law rule that an original tortfeasor is liable for aggravation of original injuries caused by the malpractice of a physician reasonably selected by the injured party. We do know, however, of the Legislature’s pressing concern to stem the tide of medical malpractice lawsuits in the late 1980⅛. See, e.g., N.D.C.C. § 28-01-46 (requiring a claimant to obtain an admissible expert opinion to support allegations of professional negligence within three months of commencement of the action or at a later date upon a showing of good cause or face dismissal of the action); N.D.C.C. § 32-42-03 (requiring an' attempt at alternative dispute resolution of the claim prior to commencement of a malpractice action); N.D.C.C. § 28-01-18 (statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims is two years (not six as for other personal injury claims) after the claim for relief has accrued).
[¶ 50] It seems unlikely the Legislature intended, at a time when it was concerned about the number of medical malpractice claims being filed, to abrogate the common law rule that original tortfeasors are liable for the foreseeable negligence of reasonably selected medical care providers when it enacted the modified comparative fault statute. I also do not believe the Legislature intended to foster additional lawsuits. The majority’s opinion changes the entire practice of tort law in this area. Instead of an action solely against the original tortfeasor, the injured person will now be under substantial pressure to bring an additional action against the medical provider of negligent treatment in the event the original tortfeasor raises a non-party defense. In addition, because of the shorter statute of limitations for medical negligence claims, plaintiffs will be forced to commence actions for personal injury sooner, to be assured of being able to add the medical provider as a party if the tortfeasor raises the provider’s standard of care as a defense.
[¶ 51] Further, it is illogical to compare the fault of the original tortfeasor with the treating physician under these circumstances. This case does not involve one indivisible injury brought about by concurrent negligence, but rather it involves the negligence of a driver resulting in an accident and the subsequent negligence of a physician resulting in malpractice. The accident caused the injury and the malpractice caused enhancement of the injury. The damages should be reduced only by the separate injury attributable to the physician, if at all.
[¶ 52] The majority distinguishes Holden v. Balko, 949 F.Supp. 704 (S.D.Ind.1996) based upon the inclusion of “malpractice” in our statutory language. Based on that distinction and its conclusion our statutory language is unambiguous, it disregards the sound policy reasons underlying the Holden decision. The majority opinion does not cite one jurisdiction that supports its decision. I believe the Holden rationale supports an interpretation of the statute which retains the common law rule imposing liability on the' original tortfeasor for the foreseeable negligence of a medical provider. See also Edwards v. Sisler, 691 N.E.2d 1252, 1255 (Ind.Ct.App.1998).
[¶ 53] The Holden court discussed the consequences of interpreting Indiana’s comparative fault statute to abrogate this common law rule. The first consequence would be the unfair burden it places on tort victims, who will now be in the “unenviable position” of not only bearing the responsibility of mitigating their damages by utilizing good faith *395and reasonable care in the selection of medical care providers, but also “second-guessing ... physicians in order to determine whether the doctor properly diagnosed the injury.” Holden, 949 F.Supp. at 711. Such an interpretation will also have drastic consequences for North Dakota tort law and practice. Our tort law will now allow defendants who are not patients of the doctor to put on trial the quality of the doctor’s care of the injured person without the doctor as a party. Id. In many cases, the original tortfeasor will be a stranger to the physician-patient relationship and have only a financial interest in putting to test the physician’s standard of care for the victim. Id. The physician-patient relationship will not be spared either; every car accident victim in an emergency room now presents the likely event the treating doctor will eventually be made a party to the lawsuit. The Holden decision accurately prognosticates the unfortunate but inevitable consequences of the majority’s decision today; consequences the Legislature surely did not intend when it passed the “tort reform” provisions in 1987.
[¶ 54] Even assuming the statute is unambiguous, our established rules of statutory construction presume the Legislature does not intend unreasonable or unjust results. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-38. Here the result of abrogating this common law rule is that the original tortfeasor, who has the benefit of the law of mitigation of damages, and who places the injured person at risk for treatment, escapes liability for the natural consequences of his original negligence. Also, allowing the defendant to allege medical negligence when the statute of limitations has run for filing a medical malpractice claim, unfairly prejudices the plaintiffs right to a full recovery for his injuries. Moreover, many procedural questions exist such as the necessity for pleading the “non party” defense, the timeliness of expert witness disclosure, compliance with medical malpractice mediation, proper jury instructions, settlement, etc. Doctors and other medical care providers will feel the squeeze of the defendant’s demand for financial contribution toward claim resolution and the threat of litigation by the injured person.
[¶ 55] In view of the significance of this issue and the impact it will have on North Dakota tort practice, I cannot conclude the Legislature intended this derogation of existing common law without a clearer statement to that effect. I, therefore, dissent.
[¶ 56] Mary Muehlen Maring