Court Opinion

ID: 9617477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:56:20.103179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:10.140977
License: Public Domain

Judge GREENE
concurring in the result.
I join with the majority in holding the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs fifth cause of action against Thomas for the negligent design and construction of the school bus. The plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a duty by defendant Thomas, a breach of that duty and that the breach resulted in injuries proximately caused by the breach.
I do not find it necessary or helpful, however, to recognize a new cause of action for enhanced injuries. In fact, the term “enhanced injury,” along with the terms “crashworthiness,” “second collision” and “second accident,” is merely an expression for “the notion that, within limits, automobile manufacturers may be held liable for injuries caused by their failure to take the possibility of automobile accidents into consideration in designing their products.” 5 S. Speiser, C. Krause & A. Gans, The American Law of Torts, Sec. 18:89, P. 932 (1988) [hereinafter Speiser, Krause, & Gans]. These concepts do not have a “life of [their] own as separate and distinct causefs] of action.” Id. Instead, they are but a part of the necessary proofs of any traditional negligence action. See Olsen v. United States, 521 F. Supp. 59, 63 (E.D. Pa. 1981), aff’d without op., 688 F. 2d 820 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1107, 74 L.Ed. 2d 956, 103 S.Ct. 732 (1983) (“second collision” doctrine does not have a life of its own but is applicable in cases tried on negligence theory); Fox v. Ford Motor Co., 575 F. 2d 774, 787 (10th Cir. 1978) (orthodox tort principles can be routinely applied to enhanced injury litigation); hut see Huddell v. Levin, 537 F. 2d 726, 742 (3d Cir. 1976) (the concept of second collision liability is sui generis and common law doctrines of negligence are of no useful purpose); Caizzo v. Volkswagenwerk A.G., 647 F. 2d 241, 250 (2d Cir. 1981) (proximate cause issue should be addressed as two separate issues involving the occurrence and *104the extent of the enhancement); Harris, Enhanced Injury Theory: An Analytic Framework, 62 N.C.L. Rev. 642, 657 (1984) (“enhanced injury theory is neither sui generis nor the subject for a mechanical application of other tort formulas”).
Plaintiff’s attempt to establish joint and several liability for injuries allegedly caused by several tort-feasors is a common practice and is governed by traditional principles of negligence, such as:
(1) The plaintiffs injuries must have been caused directly or proximately by the negligent acts of the defendants. W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts Sec. 30 (5th ed. 1984) [hereinafter Prosser and Keeton]; Speiser, Krause & Gans, Sec. 9:1, p. 994; City of Thomasville v. Lease-Afex, Inc., 300 N.C. 651, 656, 268 S.E. 2d 190, 194 (1980) (question in a products liability case is whether the injuries were caused “directly or proximately by the breach”); Bolkhir v. N.C. State Univ., 321 N.C. 706, 709, 365 S.E. 2d 898, 900 (1988) (an element of actionable negligence is whether the breach of a duty was “the proximate cause of the injury”); Holley v. Burroughs Wellcome, 318 N.C. 352, 355, 348 S.E. 2d 772, 774 (1986) (in products liability action a party must show “injury caused directly or proximately by the breach”); Adams v. Mills, 312 N.C. 181, 187, 322 S.E. 2d 164, 168 (1984) (the elements of proof of contributory negligence include proving that the “breach of duty was a proximate cause of the injury suffered”); hut see Miller v. Miller, 273 N.C. 228, 237, 160 S.E. 2d 65, 73 (1968) (plaintiffs failure to buckle his seat belt, generally, does not impair his right to recover from an active tort-feasor because the failure to buckle the seat belt “in no way contributed to the accident”).
(2) Two or more tort-feasors may be responsible for the same injuries. Adams, 312 N.C. at 194, 322 S.E. 2d at 172 (there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury).
(3) Tort-feasors are jointly and severally liable if they either act together in committing the wrong or commit separate negligent acts which concur as to time and place and unite in proximately causing a single indivisible injury. Phillips v. Hassett Mining Co., 244 N.C. 17, 22, 92 S.E. 2d 429, 433 (1956); see Yandell v. Fireproofing Corp., 239 N.C. 1, 9-10, 79 S.E. 2d 223, 229 (1953) (concurrent negligence occurs when two or more persons concur “in point of consequence in producing a *105single indivisible injury”); Bost v. Metcalfe, 219 N.C. 607, 611, 14 S.E. 2d 648, 652 (1941) (where no concert of action or no single indivisible injury, physician who negligently treats injury negligently inflicted by another is not a joint tort-feasor); Mitchell v. Volkswagenwerk A.G., 669 F. 2d 1199, 1206 (8th Cir. 1982) (if manufacturer’s negligence “is found to be a substantial factor in causing an indivisible injury . . . then absent a reasonable basis to determine which wrongdoer actually caused the harm, the defendants should be treated as joint and several tort-feasors”); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 433A(1) (1965) (“damages for harm are to be apportioned among two or more causes where (a) there are distinct harms, or (b) there is a reasonable basis for determining the contribution of each cause to a single harm”); Fox, 575 F. 2d at 787 (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 433A (1965)); see generally Prosser and Keeton, Sec. 30, p. 346-47 (two or more persons may be liable for the entire wrong if they act in concert or if the actions of both persons produce a single indivisible result).
(4) A single indivisible injury exists if apportionment among the tort-feasors is impossible. See Ipock v. Gilmore, 73 N.C. App. 182, 186, 326 S.E. 2d 271, 275, disc. rev. denied, 314 N.C. 116, 332 S.E. 2d 481 (1985); Prosser and Keeton, Sec. 30, p. 347.
(5) Negligent conduct of first tort-feasor may be insulated by independent negligent acts of second tort-feasor. Adams, 312 N.C. at 194, 322 S.E. 2d at 172-73. The test is whether the independent negligent act of the second actor is reasonably foreseeable on the part of the original actor. Id.; see 5 Speiser, Krause & Gans, Sec. 18:92, p. 940 (1988) (“. . . an accident or collision is considered a foreseeable result of the normal use of a motor vehicle . . .”); Riddle v. Artis, 243 N.C. 668, 671, 91 S.E. 2d 894, 896 (1956) (where intervening cause “becomes itself solely responsible for the injuries” original wrongdoer is relieved of liability); Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 442A (1965) (“Where the negligent conduct of the actor creates or increases the foreseeable risk of harm through the intervention of another force, and is a substantial factor in causing the harm, such intervention is not a superseding cause.”).
(6) Whether injuries are capable of apportionment among the tort-feasors is an issue of law for the trial court to decide. See Casado v. Melas Corp., 69 N.C. App. 630, 635, 318 S.E. *1062d 247, 250 (1984) (court determined damage complained of was the indivisible result of several causes); Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 434(l)(b) (1965) (trial court to determine “whether the harm to the plaintiff is capable of apportionment among two or more causes”). If the trial court determines the damages are capable of apportionment, the actual apportionment is a question of fact for the jury. Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 434(2)(b) (1965); see Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 433B(2) (1965) (“where the tortious conduct of two or more actors has combined to bring about harm to the plaintiff, and one or more of the actors seeks to limit his liability on the ground that the harm is capable of apportionment among them, the burden of proof as to the apportionment is upon each such actor”); see also 1 Speiser, Krause & Gans, Sec. 3:7, p. 398 (“the burden of proof is on defendant once the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that the defendant’s conduct contributed as a proximate cause to the harm suffered by plaintiff”).
I likewise join with the majority in holding, for the reasons stated in that opinion, that the trial court committed no error in dismissing the plaintiff’s cause of action based on strict liability or in dismissing the third cause of action for punitive damages.