Anderson v. Somberg

The Supreme Court of New Jersey
67 N.J. 291, 338 A.2d 1 (1975)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When an unconscious patient suffers an injury unrelated to the surgery from a medical instrument, and all potentially liable parties (e.g., surgeon, hospital, manufacturer, distributor) are defendants, the burden of proof shifts to each defendant to prove their non-culpability. If the defendants cannot exculpate themselves, the jury must return a verdict for the plaintiff against at least one of the defendants.

Facts:

The plaintiff was undergoing a laminectomy (back surgery) performed by Dr. Somberg at St. James Hospital.
During the procedure, the tip of a pituitary rongeur, a forceps-like instrument, broke off while being manipulated in the plaintiff's spinal canal.
Dr. Somberg attempted to retrieve the metal fragment but was unsuccessful, and the fragment remained lodged in the plaintiff's spine.
The plaintiff suffered significant and permanent physical injuries as a direct result of the embedded rongeur fragment.
The rongeur was manufactured by Lawton Instrument Company and sold to St. James Hospital by the distributor, Reinhold-Schumann, Inc.
The hospital was responsible for the inspection, sterilization, and maintenance of its surgical instruments.
The rongeur had been purchased four years prior and had been used approximately 20 times before the plaintiff's surgery.
Experts presented conflicting theories: plaintiff's expert claimed a non-defective rongeur used properly would not break, while the manufacturer's expert testified the break resulted from strain or 'twisting' and not a manufacturing defect.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff sued Dr. Somberg (malpractice), St. James Hospital (negligence), Reinhold-Schumann, Inc. (breach of warranty), and Lawton Instrument Company (strict liability) in the trial court.
The jury returned a verdict finding no cause of action against any of the defendants.
Plaintiff appealed the jury's verdict to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court and ordered a new trial, holding that the jury should have been instructed that at least one defendant had to be found liable.
The defendants were granted certification to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, the state's highest court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

When an unconscious patient is injured by an instrumentality and sues all parties who could have been responsible for the injury (e.g., surgeon, hospital, manufacturer, distributor), must the burden of proof shift to the defendants, requiring each to prove their non-culpability or face liability?

Opinions:

Majority - Pashman, J.

Yes. In a case where an unconscious patient suffers an injury from a medical instrument and all potentially responsible parties are before the court, the burden of proof shifts to each defendant to prove they were not responsible. An alignment of the equities requires this shift because the plaintiff is blameless and helpless to identify the cause, while the defendants have superior knowledge and control over the circumstances. This approach, which is an expansion of res ipsa loquitur, requires the jury to be instructed that at least one defendant must be found liable, as no other theory for the injury is reasonably conceivable. It would be a miscarriage of justice to allow a faultless plaintiff to go uncompensated because the defendants, who collectively hold the power to explain the incident, fail to do so.

Dissenting - Mountain, J.

No. Shifting the burden of proof and compelling a jury to find at least one defendant liable is irrational and unjust. The majority's core premise—that all potentially culpable parties are before the court—is factually incorrect, as the record shows the instrument had been used by up to 20 other surgeons who are not parties to this case. Therefore, the true tortfeasor is likely not even present. This new rule forces a jury to act contrary to their oath to decide based on evidence, effectively reducing the judicial process to a 'trial by lot' and creating a high risk of imposing liability upon a wholly innocent party.

Analysis:

This decision represents a significant expansion of tort liability principles, particularly the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, into a theory of alternative liability for medical settings. By shifting the full burden of proof, not just the burden of production, the court created a powerful tool for plaintiffs who are injured while unconscious and cannot pinpoint the specific tortfeasor. The ruling places the onus on the collective group of defendants (doctors, hospitals, manufacturers) to absolve themselves or determine liability amongst themselves. This approach, sometimes referred to as 'enterprise liability,' has a substantial impact on medical malpractice and products liability litigation by ensuring an innocent patient has a remedy even with uncertain proof of individual causation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Anderson v. Somberg (1975)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature