Champagne v. United States
1994 N.D. LEXIS 62, 513 N.W.2d 75, 1994 WL 67131 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under North Dakota's comparative fault statute, a suicide victim's fault is compared with a medical provider's negligence, but the allocation of fault to the victim must be reduced in proportion to the victim's diminished mental capacity to care for their own safety.
Facts:
- Ricky Champagne, an 18-year-old, had a history of personal troubles, including conflict with his father.
- On January 25, 1989, Champagne attempted suicide via a medication overdose and was admitted to an Indian Health Services (IHS) hospital.
- Champagne was diagnosed with an adolescent adjustment disorder with suicidal ideations and discharged on January 28 on the condition that he return for follow-up counseling.
- The scheduled follow-up did not occur, and IHS provided no further counseling or psychiatric referrals for Champagne.
- On February 13, Champagne's mother informed an IHS representative that her son was exhibiting classic warning signs of a planned suicide, including giving away prized possessions.
- The IHS representative dismissed her concerns, made only one unsuccessful attempt to contact Champagne, and took no further action after Champagne later missed a self-scheduled appointment.
- On February 20, 1989, Ricky Champagne died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Procedural Posture:
- Debra and Richard Champagne, as representatives of their deceased son's estate, filed a medical malpractice and wrongful death action against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota.
- The federal district court, sitting as the trier of fact, found that the Indian Health Services (IHS) was negligent and that this negligence was a proximate cause of Ricky Champagne's death.
- The district court also found that Ricky's intentional act of suicide was the primary cause of his death, assigned him more than 50% of the fault, and therefore barred his parents' recovery under North Dakota's comparative fault law.
- The Champagnes, as plaintiffs, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions of state law to the Supreme Court of North Dakota for clarification on how to apply the comparative fault statute.
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 North Dakota's comparative fault statute require consideration of a suicide victim's fault when their death was allegedly caused by a medical provider's negligent treatment for suicidal ideations?
Opinions:
Majority - Meschke, Justice
Yes, a suicide victim's fault is to be considered under North Dakota's comparative fault statute. The statute's broad definition of 'fault' includes 'willful conduct' and 'failure to avoid injury,' which encompasses the intentional act of suicide. However, the comparison of fault is not straightforward; it requires the fact-finder to account for the patient's diminished mental capacity. A mentally ill person can only be held to the degree of care that their diminished capacity permits. The court reasoned that if a patient is so incapacitated as to be unable to be responsible for their own well-being, the medical provider's duty of care 'subsumes' the patient's duty of self-care, and no fault should be allocated to the patient. Furthermore, a patient's suicide, if it is a foreseeable consequence of the medical provider's negligence, cannot be a superseding cause that absolves the provider of liability.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a nuanced framework for applying comparative fault in medical malpractice cases involving patient suicide, rejecting an all-or-nothing approach. It preserves the principle of comparative fault but tailors it to the unique circumstances of mental health treatment by creating a sliding scale of patient responsibility based on mental capacity. This precedent makes it more difficult for healthcare providers to use a patient's final act of suicide as an absolute defense or a superseding cause, especially when the suicide was a foreseeable outcome of negligent care. The ruling places a significant burden on the trier of fact to carefully evaluate the patient's mental state, making such cases highly fact-dependent.
