LegalMatch, Market superseding cause | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute Unlike the doctrines of comparative negligence, avoidable consequences, and superseding/intervening causation, Scafidi-type cases generally do not implicate fault on the part of the plaintiff. If you find that plaintiff has established defendant s negligence, then defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Michelle, in light of her health or mental condition, could reasonably have acted to avoid or mitigate injury. For directions on using bracketed phrases, see WPIC 4.20 (Introduction). A defendant's conduct is not a proximate cause if some other cause was the sole cause. In addition, the panel stated that there was no reason for the court to instruct the jury on both foreseeability and intervening cause, for if Michelle s purposeful misuse of the Duragesic patch was foreseeable, then the drug abuse would not be a superseding cause that relieves Dr. Picciano from negligence. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the apportionment statute permits consideration of the fault of a tortfeasor, notwithstanding that he may have a meritorious affirmative defense or claim or immunity against any liability to the plaintiff. Id., quoting Zaldivar v. Prickett, 297 Ga. 589 (2015). The defendant would still likely be to blame for the incident. your CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVecchiaand pattersonand JUDGES RODR GUEZ and CUFF (both temporarily assigned) joinin JUSTICE albin s opinion. Michelle agreed to babysit the toddler in the waiting room. Did As with all disputed issues, the jury is the final arbiter of the facts. Superseding Intervening Cause: Defense Defendants appealed as of right under Rule2:2-1(a). A superseding or intervening act is one that breaks the chain of causation linking a defendant s wrongful act and an injury suffered by a plaintiff. The jury charge failed to give the jury the guidance it needed to sort through the complex issues in this case. On that basis, plaintiff submitted that the court should not charge on comparative negligence, increased risk due to a preexisting condition, or avoidable consequences. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56, any party may make a motion for summary judgment on an affirmative defense. That, however, is not a sufficient reason for not instructing on superseding/intervening causes. That charge requires that the principles of law be charged with reference to the specific facts of the case. An intervening act is a force that actively operates to produce harm to another after the actor's act or omission has been committed. State v. Souther, 100 Wn.App. These three questions, and a fourth that allowed an allocation of damages if the jury answered affirmatively to the first three, were the entirety of the court s Scafidicharge. Crimes Involving Operation of Motor Vehicles, WPIC 90.08 Vehicular Homicide and AssaultConduct of Another. The superseding cause relieves from responsibility (liability) the party whose act started the series of events which led to the accident, since . In Phan Son Van v. Pena, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the Defendant was not liable to the plaintiff. Before joining LegalMatch, Ty worked as a law clerk and freelance writer. . The first three interrogatory questions read: 1) Did plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Anne Picciano, M.D., deviated from accepted standards of family medical practice? Defendants also maintain that the errant but for language in the jury charge was harmless, for the reasons given by Judge Ashrafi. In an unpublished opinion, a split three-judge panel of the Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court incorrectly charged the jury on the law. As with all jury instructions, the trial judge should tailor the charge to the facts and the parties arguments. In the present case, a family-care physician prescribed a powerful medication, a Duragesic patch, to treat a patient who suffered from chronic back pain -- a patient who also was known to abuse alcohol and drugs. What are superseding causes in a personal injury claim? - The Law Advisory Michelle suffers from a permanent brain injury with physical deficits; severe cognitive, behavioral, and psychological impairments; and memory loss. . But it did not mold its instructions to the facts of this case. An intoxicated defendant may avoid responsibility for a death which results from his or her driving if the death is caused by a superseding, intervening event. At some point, the plaintiff was placed in a room, the door was closed, and she was not monitored, contrary to hospital policy. Dr. Picciano nevertheless made no attempt to prevent Michelle from continuing to use the prescribed Duragesic, nor did she make any notation in Michelle s chart to alert her practice group that Michelle had been abusing alcohol. Superseding intervening cause legal definition of Superseding Voluntarily took on that danger (assumed the risk) in participating in the activity. In support of its ruling, the court cited Ostrowski v. Azzara, 111 N.J.429, 441 (1988), which held that trial courts must avoid the indiscriminate application of the doctrine of comparative negligence (with its fifty percent qualifier for recovery) when the doctrines of avoidable consequences or preexisting condition apply. State v . To establish that a third person's . A plaintiff suffering from a health or mental condition may be capable, incapable or not fully capable of caring for herself as an ordinary person would. For example, suppose a defendant negligently blocks a road causing the plaintiff to make a detour in her automobile. The Scafidicharge, moreover, was given for a purpose not intended by our preexisting-condition jurisprudence. In plaintiff s view, even if Scafidiprinciples applied, defendants failed to identify the pre-existing condition and reasonably apportion the damages and did not satisfy those principles merely by insisting that the anoxic brain injury would have occurred anyway because a drug addict can overdose at any time. Law, Products (pp. From the pharmacy, Mrs. Komlodi, her two-year-old granddaughter, and Michelle drove to a doctor s office where Mrs. Komlodi had an appointment. ON APPEAL FROM Appellate Division, Superior Court. Civil and criminal defendants alike may invoke the intervening cause doctrine to escape liability for their actions. A child takes the pistol, shoots another child, and causes injury. they are outside a medically controlled environment. The content of this site is intended for healthcare professionals. In this case, the jury found that Dr. Picciano deviated from the applicable standard of care. Finally, she urges that charging superseding/intervening causation was improper because defendants conceded that abuse of the Duragesic patch was foreseeable, and therefore such a charge could only have served to confuse the jury. SeeFosgate, supra, 66 N.J.at 272 73. Furthermore, this case did not involve the ineluctable progression of a disease on its own. New Mexico Law Review 30 (spring): 32549. He noted that even in 2004 there were reports of addicts orally ingesting the Duragesic patch. . The biggest distinction between a superseding cause and an intervening cause is this. The superseding cause relieves from responsibility (liability) the party whose act started the series of events which led to the . An intervening act, which is a normal response created by negligence, is not a superseding, intervening cause so as to relieve the original wrongdoer of liability, provided the intervening act could have reasonably been foreseen and the conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. Estoppel. Komlodi v. Picciano :: 2014 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions In other words, an unforeseeable or improbable intervening cause will constitute a superseding cause, and will allow a defendant to escape liability. Typically, an intervening superseding cause cuts the defendant off from criminal liability because it is much closer, or proximate, to the resulting harm (Connecticut Jury Instructions No. Superseding Cause Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc. (this may not be the same place you live), Faulty/Defective Products/Services (Auto, Drug), Investments (Annuities, Securities, IPOs), Online Law ); id.at 437 (stating that under comparative negligence plaintiff is barred from receiving recovery when her fault is greater than defendant s); id.at 443 (stating that under avoidable consequences plaintiff s recovery is reduced by degree of her fault as expressed by percentage); Cowan, supra, 111 N.J.at 465 (stating that plaintiff s volitional act may constitute superseding/intervening cause barring recovery). That was not done here. SeeCaputzal, supra, 48 N.J.at 78 79. 39:4-50(a) (defining [d]riving while intoxicated as operat[ing] a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more ). A superseding cause is an unforeseeable intervening cause. Defendants basic argument in summation was that Michelle chose to misuse the Duragesic afterDr. "If the intervening cause is strong enough to relieve the wrongdoer of any liability, it becomes a superseding cause." Id. That finding is not directly at issue in this appeal. This appeal concerns the propriety of a jury charge on causation in a medical malpractice action. (citation omitted)). U.S. Govt. An independent intervening cause can be reckless or intentional misconduct or negligence. 2021 Thomson Reuters. Plaintiff maintains that a Scafidicase is one in which a doctor negligently treats a preexisting disease, thereby increasing the harm caused by the preexisting disease. Intervening Negligence: The Negative Approach to the Problem of Liability According to defendants, Michelle s abuse of alcohol for pain relief was destroying her liver, and prescribing the Duragesic was a medically acceptable treatment for her pain. Use this instruction with WPIC 4.01 (Burden of ProofPresumption of Innocence). Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J.463, 479 (2013) (noting that in malpractice cases generally an expert must have the same type of practice and possess the same credentials, as applicable, as the defendant health care provider (quoting Assem. all words any words phrase. Criminal human conduct by a third party will not be considered an intervening cause relieving the defendant of liability if the defendant's Negligence has contributed to the victim's loss. According to the panel, a Scafidicharge is limited to that class of cases in which a defendant s negligence combines with a preexistent condition to cause harm, (quoting Verdicchio v. Ricca, 179 N.J.1, 23 24 (2004)), and the central question in such cases is whether [a] plaintiff s damage claim should be limited to the value of the lost chance of recovery, (alteration in original) (quoting Anderson v. Picciotti, 144 N.J.195, 209 (1996)). Dr. Picciano was an employee of JFK Medical Center specializing in family medicine and held the position of Associate Director of the Family Practice Center. Id.at 419 20. The Court therefore affirmed and modified the Appellate Division's and remanded the case for a new trial. Standard Number: 0015.40 Seattle City Light Superseding: WORK PRACTICE Just four days after her release from the hospital, on the morning of August 2, Michelle consumed half a pint of blackberry red and half a pint of vodka mix. Therefore, if there are several negligent acts in the series of events that resulted in an injury a subsequent act by another defendant or by the plaintiff themselves may sever the causal link to the original defendant for some or all of the ultimate injury. Had the court attempted to do so, the inadvisability of giving the charge might have become apparent. Div. Id.at 455. Dr. Medlaw: What you are referring to is the legal doctrine of intervening superseding cause. . In contrast, the doctrine of avoidable consequences applies when a plaintiff s carelessness that occurs afterthe defendant s tortious act causes plaintiff additional harm. n. an event which occurs between the original improper or dangerous action and the damage itself. A physician must exercise a duty of care to a patient that, generally, any similarly credentialed member of the profession would exercise in a like scenario. Verdicchio, supra, 179 N.J.at 37 (quoting Fosgate, supra, 66 N.J.at 272). According to the appeals court, the sudden illness was an intervening cause. Law Inst. The appellate panel majority and the dissent agree that the use of a but for causation charge in conjunction with a substantial-factor charge was error. 2) Did plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the deviation by Dr. Picciano increased the risk of harm posed by Michelle Komlodi s pre-existing condition? SeeEvers, supra, 95 N.J.at 413. Nevertheless, she reluctantly agreed to prescribe the anti-depressant Zoloft as a bridge until Michelle s mental health appointment. Dr. Picciano warned Michelle that she could not drink alcohol while using the Duragesic patch. The court decided to charge on preexisting condition, avoidable consequences, and superseding/intervening causation, but not on comparative negligence. A serendipitous event, such as the ambulance carrying someone suffering from the effects of malpractice being in an MVA that further injures them, would come under this doctrine, though, because it would be considered unforeseeable. your case and get the proper help today. Three days later, Michelle s blood-test results suggested that she might have hepatitis C, a disease that poses a serious danger to the liver. "The ultimate harm caused to the patient was from her own conduct - whether volitional or not - after the physician prescribed the [patch]." In a medical-malpractice action, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the relevant standard of care governing the defendant-doctor, a deviation from that standard, an injury proximately caused by the deviation, and damages suffered from the defendant-doctor s negligence. Here, according to plaintiff, Scafididoes not apply because Dr. Picciano was treating Michelle for lower back pain and not for the preexisting disease of alcohol or drug addiction. For the reasons explained, we affirm and modify the judgment of the Appellate Division. Superseding causes allow the defendant to avoid liability because they are evidence that the defendant's breach of duty was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Defendants argue that the trial court properly gave a Scafidicharge because Michelle had a preexisting drug and alcohol addiction, and if Dr. Picciano increased the risk of harm by prescribing a powerful medication for Michelle s unremitting back pain, it was Michelle s craving for narcotics [that] overcame the valid use of the Duragesic patch. . Lets imagine that a homeowner recklessly excavates a hole in a sidewalk and leaves it wide open without giving passersby any advance notice. Div. A no-cause verdict was therefore entered in defendants favor. Id.at 456. The trial court charged the jury on "preexisting disease or condition" (a "Scafidi" charge). (See: cause, negligence). The most common intervening causes cited by defendants are natural forces and negligent human conduct. At the time that she treated Michelle, Dr. Picciano also was aware that the Duragesic patch could be cut open and the fentanyl directly accessed by an addict. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. . a remote or abnormal incident of the risk of self-injury that was not otherwise reasonably foreseeable by defendants. Juries must know how the legal instructions are to be applied to the complex factual scenarios before them, and the instructions must be clear and understandable. Certain defences will provide a complete defence, such as consent and the voluntary assumption of risk, whereas others will merely serve to reduce the damages awarded (such as contributory negligence). This is a "but for" situation, in which the intervention becomes the real reason harm resulted. A superseding cause is something that takes the place - supersedes - of the defendant's liability for an accident. legal theory. Dr. Picciano was aware that Michelle was procuring illicit drugs, including Duragesic patches and Percocet, and abusing alcohol. The superseding intervening cause defense is one of the few defenses in Minnesota workers' compensation law that can result in a complete bar to all benefits claimed that are attributable to the superseding event. . Michelle admitted that she was self-medicating with alcohol and drugs, such as Percocet and Duragesic patches, which were given to her by a friend. case, we are here to help. She also acknowledged that an addict s craving can overcome her will. When he didnt answer his phone the Head Nurse sent the cops to his house and he was passed out on the porch. All that the hospital might have been able to do would be to seek a percentage set-off in damages because of the contribution of the patients own negligence. On the other hand, plaintiff claims that Michelle was so impaired by her addiction that she was incapable of caring for herself, that is, incapable of avoiding or mitigating her injuries. What are these causes, and how do they affect personal injury claims? Please provide a valid Zip Code or City and choose a category, Please select a city from the list and choose a category. Foreseeability is the main distinction between an intervening cause and a superseding cause. Indeed, the trial court must tailor the instructions on the law to the theories and facts of a complex case for a jury to fully understand the task before it. Model Jury Charge (Civil) 8.11B, Duty to Mitigate Damages by Medical and Surgical Treatment, will only be meaningful to a jury hearing this case if it addresses the special circumstances presented here -- how plaintiff acted in light of her drug and alcohol addiction. ). and JFK MEDICAL CENTER, 3 Argued October 7, 2013 Decided May 20, 2014. The trial court denied the motions of both plaintiff and defendants for a directed verdict. . N.J.S.A.2A:15-5.1. The intervening superseding cause doctrine will apply if the subsequent negligent act or omission was (1) sufficient by itself to cause the injury, and (2) was not foreseeable to the first defendant. Ctr., 136 N.J.335, 342 (1994) (stating in case involving elderly woman who fell off hospital stretcher that it is wrong to suggest to the jury that although the hospital had the duty to care for an incapacitated patient, the patient s lack of care for herself diluted that duty ).
Okemos High School News,
What Causes High Co2 Levels In House,
Potosi, Mo Breaking News,
Personal Property Tax Lynchburg, Va,
Articles S