Court Opinion

ID: 9513431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:35:33.854434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:51.604506
License: Public Domain

KAPSNER, Justice,
concurring.
[¶ 40] If I thought this court were the appropriate body to announce policy for the state, I would adopt the policy suggested by Justice Maring’s dissent that we ought to retain the common law rule imposing liability on the original tortfeasor for the foreseeable intervening negligence of a medical provider. 1 would do so because I believe the opposite policy has the unfortunate result outlined in paragraph 53 of the dissent. However, since the legislature has included malpractice under the definition of fault in N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02 which requires that the burden of fault be allocated, I must concur.
[¶ 41] NEUMANN, J., concurs.