Court Opinion

ID: 9695428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:19:19.990546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:12.347597
License: Public Domain

Knutson, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I cannot agree with this decision. Our Rule 42.01 provides for the consolidation of causes of action having a common question of fact or law. The rule is complementary to the rules dealing with joinder of claims. and parties.1 The rule was never intended to. permit consolidation of two or more causes of action based on separate and independent torts. Why should a defendant'in one tort action be compelled to take part in protracted litigation involving an entirely separate tort? Certainly there is no common question of fact or law as far as liability of these tortfeasors is concerned. Nor can I see that there is any common question of law or fact as to damages. Each tortfeasor is liable for the damages caused by his separate tort. While consolidation of these actions may give plaintiff a strategic advantage in that a common jury may conceivably award more damages against both tort-feasors than it would against either or against both if tried in separate actions, that is not the purpose of our consolidation rule. Nor does expediency justify depriving a tortfeasor of the right to have his liability and damages determined on the evidence involving his conduct alone without having it confused with the liability of another and separate tortfeasor. Certainly, if plaintiff broke an arm in one collision and á leg in another, no one would contend that the two actions ought to be tried together if they had no connection with each other. I cannot see any more justification for holding they ought to be tried together merely because the same limb happens to be hurt in both accidents.
I think the writ ought to be made absolute.

See, 2 Youngquist & Blacik, Minnesota Rules Practice, Authors’ Comment No. 3, p. 375.