Court Opinion

ID: 9510552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:57:13.924417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:02.412554
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GRAY,
specially concurring.
¶29 I join the Court’s opinion in its entirety. With regard to issue 1, however, I write separately to briefly address an argument raised by the Respondents and noted by the Court.
¶30 We properly conclude in this case that comparative negligence as a defense does not apply where a patient’s pre-treatment behavior merely furnishes the need for medical care or treatment which later becomes the subject of a malpractice claim. On that basis, we hold that the District Court abused its discretion in instructing the jury on comparative negligence.
¶31 The Respondents argue, in this regard, that
the jury never reached the issue of Candice’s negligence on her survivorship claim because the jury concluded that Defendants were not negligent in both the survivorship and wrongful death claims. Thus it is a moot issue on appeal.
They advance no authorities in support of their argument, however, as required by Rule 23(b), M.R.App.R, and it is not this Court’s job to do the parties’ work for them. For that reason, the Respondents are not entitled to have this Court address their argument on the merits.