Jensen v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc.
679 P.2d 903, 1984 Utah LEXIS 771 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a multi-defendant comparative negligence case, the Utah Comparative Negligence Act requires the plaintiff's negligence to be compared against the combined negligence of all defendants to determine liability, rather than against each defendant individually.
Facts:
- Dale Jensen, the plaintiffs’ decedent, died as a result of negligence on the part of an emergency room physician and Intermountain Health Care, Inc., a hospital.
- Plaintiffs (Shirley J. Jensen and the estate) settled with the defendant emergency room physician.
- A jury determined that Dale Jensen was 46 percent negligent in causing his own death.
- The jury found Intermountain Health Care, Inc. 36 percent negligent.
- The jury found the emergency room physician 18 percent negligent.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Shirley J. Jensen and the estate of Dale Jensen) filed a medical malpractice action against an emergency room physician and Intermountain Health Care, Inc. (the hospital).
- The plaintiffs settled their claim with the defendant physician.
- The plaintiffs proceeded to trial against Intermountain Health Care, Inc.
- A jury returned a special verdict, finding the plaintiffs’ decedent 46% negligent, Intermountain Health Care, Inc. 36% negligent, and the physician 18% negligent.
- The trial court initially entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against Intermountain Health Care, Inc. based on the jury verdict.
- The trial court subsequently set aside the original award and entered a judgment of no cause of action, dismissing the case.
- The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s dismissal to the Utah Supreme 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:
Does the Utah Comparative Negligence Act require a plaintiff's negligence to be compared individually against each defendant's negligence, or against the combined negligence of all defendants, to determine liability in a multi-defendant case?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, Justice
Yes, the Utah Comparative Negligence Act requires that the total negligence of all defendants be compared against the negligence of the plaintiff to determine whether a particular defendant is liable. The court reasoned that the Utah Act, while containing a section similar to the Wisconsin Act, is a comprehensive seven-section statutory scheme that must be construed as a whole. Adopting the "Wisconsin rule" (individual comparison) would conflict with and nullify critical parts of the broader Utah Act, particularly sections dealing with joint and several liability and contribution among tortfeasors (Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5). Section 4(2) explicitly states that the determination of "relative degrees of fault of joint tortfeasors" is "solely for the purpose of determining their rights of contribution among themselves, each remaining severally liable to the injured person for the whole injury as at common law." This indicates that fault apportionment among defendants does not excuse them from liability to the plaintiff. The court also noted that the statutory phrase "person against whom recovery is sought" in Section 1, when interpreted in light of Utah's statutory construction rule that "the singular number includes the plural" (§ 68-3-12(6)), supports comparing the plaintiff's negligence against the aggregate of all defendants. The majority further highlighted that the "Wisconsin rule" is a minority position and has been criticized even by the Wisconsin Supreme Court itself for leading to "harsh and unfair results," such as a plaintiff recovering nothing despite being less negligent than the combined defendants, or being less likely to recover simply due to the presence of multiple defendants.
Dissenting - Hall, Chief Justice
No, the Utah Comparative Negligence Act requires the negligence of each defendant in a multi-defendant case to be compared individually against the negligence of the plaintiff. Chief Justice Hall argued that Utah's comparative negligence statute, enacted in 1973, is "virtually identical" to the Wisconsin statute from which it was adopted. He invoked the well-settled rule of statutory construction that when a statute is adopted from another jurisdiction, the legislature is presumed to have adopted its prior judicial interpretations. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has consistently construed its statute to require individual, one-on-one comparison. Other states that adopted similar statutes, such as Idaho, Wyoming, and New Jersey, also followed the Wisconsin interpretation. The dissent contended that the general statutory rule allowing the singular to include the plural (§ 68-3-12(6)) should not be applied to determine legislative intent for this specific statute, as the literal, singular reading of "person against whom recovery is sought" clearly implies individual comparison. He noted that the Utah legislature did not include specific language, unlike legislatures in states such as Kansas and Connecticut, to indicate an intent to deviate from the "Wisconsin rule." The dissent also cited prior Utah case law and scholarly interpretations that supported individual comparison. While acknowledging arguments about fairness, the dissent asserted that establishing concepts of fairness is a legislative function, and the court's role is to construe the statute according to the legislature's intent, which, by adopting the Wisconsin statute, was to embrace the individual comparison rule.
Analysis:
This case is significant for definitively establishing the application of comparative negligence in multi-defendant actions in Utah, rejecting the individual comparison approach in favor of the combined comparison rule (the "unit rule"). By doing so, the Utah Supreme Court diverged from the judicial interpretation of the source statute in Wisconsin and other states that had adopted similar language. The decision fundamentally impacts plaintiffs' ability to recover in complex liability scenarios, as it prevents their recovery from being negated by multiple defendants whose individual fault might be less than the plaintiff's, even if their combined fault exceeds it. This ruling reinforces the principle of joint and several liability within a comparative negligence framework, ensuring that a plaintiff can potentially recover full damages from any liable defendant, regardless of that defendant's individual fault compared to the plaintiff, with contribution mechanisms available for apportionment among defendants.
