Lexplug logoLexplug

Bell v. Ren-Pharm, Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals
269 Mich. App. 464, 713 N.W.2d 285 (2006)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a medical malpractice action where the plaintiff is faultless, a defendant's joint and several liability under MCL 600.6304(6)(a) extends to all recoverable damages, including those attributable to the fault of a nonparty.


Facts:

  • Pharmacist Edward Nantais, owner of Ren-Pharm, Inc., supplied an ointment for the minor child, Taylor Blasi.
  • Taylor's grandmother, Geraldine Martindale, applied the ointment to his legs.
  • As a result of the ointment's application, Taylor Blasi sustained burns to his legs.
  • The Blasi family sued Ren-Pharm, Inc. and Nantais for medical malpractice, but did not sue Geraldine Martindale.
  • The defendants, Ren-Pharm and Nantais, identified Martindale as a nonparty at fault for the injuries.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiffs sued defendants Ren-Pharm, Inc. and Edward Nantais in a Michigan trial court for medical malpractice.
  • Defendants filed a notice identifying Geraldine Martindale as a nonparty at fault.
  • Following a trial, the jury returned a special verdict finding defendants 20 percent at fault and nonparty Martindale 80 percent at fault for the plaintiff's injuries.
  • The trial court ruled that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for all damages, including the 80 percent share attributable to Martindale.
  • Defendants (appellants) appealed the trial court's ruling to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

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

Issue:

Does a defendant's joint and several liability under the medical malpractice exception in MCL 600.6304(6)(a) extend to damages attributable to the fault of a named nonparty?


Opinions:

Majority - Bandstra, J.

Yes, a defendant's joint and several liability extends to damages attributable to the fault of a named nonparty. The tort reform statute's medical malpractice exception, MCL 600.6304(6)(a), preserves joint and several liability but is silent on its scope. Because the statute does not specify the extent of this liability, the court must look to the common law principles that the legislature is presumed to have known and intended to preserve. Under traditional principles articulated in the Restatement of Torts and prior Michigan case law like Johnston v. Billot, the purpose of joint and several liability is to ensure a full recovery for an innocent plaintiff. This doctrine places the risk of an uncollectible or unavailable tortfeasor on the at-fault defendant, not on the innocent victim. Therefore, the defendants are liable for the entire amount of damages, including the percentage of fault allocated to the nonparty, Martindale.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies a significant ambiguity within Michigan's tort reform statutes, which generally replaced joint liability with several-only liability. The court establishes that the statutory exception for medical malpractice cases with faultless plaintiffs is a full-throated preservation of the common law doctrine, not a limited version. This interpretation is highly plaintiff-protective, ensuring that innocent victims in medical malpractice contexts can obtain a full recovery from any liable defendant, regardless of how fault is apportioned among parties and nonparties. Consequently, medical malpractice defendants cannot reduce their liability by blaming an un-sued or judgment-proof individual; they remain responsible for the entire indivisible injury.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Bell v. Ren-Pharm, Inc (2006) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Bell v. Ren-Pharm, Inc