Dumas v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF CULT., REC.
2002 WL 31303016, 828 So. 2d 530 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana's pure comparative fault system established by the 1996 amendments to La. C.C. arts. 2323 and 2324(B), an initial tortfeasor is no longer automatically liable for subsequent medical malpractice and may introduce evidence of a medical provider's fault to have liability apportioned according to each party's percentage of fault.
Facts:
- On April 22, 1996, George Dumas was riding a bicycle in Chemin-a-Haut State Park.
- Dumas allegedly hit a pothole in the park road, was thrown from his bicycle, and sustained a large laceration to his forehead and scalp.
- Dumas was transported to Morehouse General Hospital for medical treatment.
- Several hours after arriving at the hospital, Dumas died.
- The State of Louisiana alleged that Dumas's death resulted from negligent medical treatment at the hospital, specifically from the administration of anesthesia which caused him to aspirate his stomach contents.
Procedural Posture:
- The Dumas family (Plaintiffs) filed a wrongful death and survival action against the State of Louisiana in a state trial court.
- The State filed an amended answer asserting the affirmative defense that the sole cause of death was the medical negligence of Morehouse General Hospital.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the State's affirmative defense as being legally insufficient under the rule from Weber v. Charity Hospital.
- The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion to strike the defense.
- The State (appellant) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The intermediate court of appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The State (applicant) then petitioned the Supreme Court of Louisiana for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 the 1996 amendment to Louisiana's comparative fault statutes, which abolished solidary liability among non-intentional tortfeasors, permit an initial tortfeasor to introduce evidence of subsequent medical malpractice to apportion fault between the tortfeasor and the medical provider?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kimball
Yes. The 1996 amendments to Louisiana Civil Code articles 2323 and 2324(B) permit an initial tortfeasor to introduce evidence of subsequent medical malpractice to apportion fault. The court reasoned that the plain language of the amended statutes requires the fault of 'all persons causing or contributing to the injury' to be determined and quantified. These amendments established a pure comparative fault system, abolishing solidary liability for non-intentional torts and making each tortfeasor liable only for their own degree of fault. This represents a fundamental legislative shift in policy, away from prioritizing full victim compensation (the basis of the prior rule in Weber and Lambert) and towards a policy where each tortfeasor pays only for the portion of damage they caused. The court cannot allow its prior policy-based holdings to override the clear and unambiguous mandate of the legislature.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Calogero
No. The 1996 amendments did not overrule the principle that an original tortfeasor is liable for a victim's injuries caused by subsequent, negligent medical treatment. The dissent argued that the prior rule, established in cases like Weber and Lambert, was based on the concept of legal cause, not merely solidary liability. The original tortfeasor's duty encompasses the foreseeable risk that a victim's injuries may be worsened by medical treatment. Therefore, the original tortfeasor is the legal cause of 100% of the harm, and there is no separate fault to apportion to the medical provider in a suit against the initial tortfeasor. The dissent believes the legislature did not intend to place innocent victims at risk of incomplete compensation by overruling this long-standing doctrine.
Analysis:
This decision signifies a major doctrinal shift in Louisiana tort law, fully displacing the policy of victim compensation in favor of a pure comparative fault system. It explicitly overrules the policy-based rationale of the 'Weber/Lambert' rule, which held an initial tortfeasor liable for foreseeable subsequent medical negligence. By allowing the apportionment of fault to non-party medical providers, the court increases the litigation burden on plaintiffs, who may now have to pursue multiple defendants to achieve full recovery, and complicates litigation strategy for defendants who now have a powerful tool to deflect liability. This holding aligns Louisiana with a stricter interpretation of several liability, impacting any case involving sequential or multiple tortfeasors.
Unlock the full brief for Dumas v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF CULT., REC.