Ravo v. Rogatnick
70 N.Y.2d 305, 520 N.Y.S.2d 533, 514 N.E.2d 1104 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When multiple tortfeasors, acting neither in concert nor concurrently, contribute through their separate and independent acts of negligence to a single, indivisible injury, they are held jointly and severally liable for the entire injury.
Facts:
- Josephine Ravo's mother, who had gestational diabetes, was under the care of obstetrician Dr. Sol Rogatnick for her pregnancy and delivery.
- Dr. Rogatnick failed to ascertain pertinent medical information, incorrectly estimated the infant's size, and used improper procedures during delivery, which began to cause brain damage to Josephine.
- Following her birth, Josephine was placed under the care of pediatrician Dr. Irwin L. Harris.
- Dr. Harris misdiagnosed and improperly treated Josephine's post-birth conditions, including hyperbilirubinemia and an excessively high hematocrit level.
- The separate negligent acts of both doctors were substantial contributing causes to Josephine's single, indivisible injury: severe and permanent brain damage.
- Expert medical testimony established that it was impossible to delineate which specific aspects of the brain damage were caused by the negligence of Dr. Rogatnick versus the negligence of Dr. Harris.
Procedural Posture:
- Josephine Ravo sued Dr. Harris and Dr. Rogatnick for medical malpractice in New York Supreme Court, the trial court of first instance.
- A jury found both doctors negligent and returned a verdict for the plaintiff, apportioning fault 80% to Dr. Rogatnick and 20% to Dr. Harris.
- The trial court entered an amended judgment holding both defendants jointly and severally liable for the entire damage award.
- Dr. Harris (appellant) filed a post-verdict motion to limit his liability to 20% of the damages, which the trial court denied.
- Dr. Harris appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division, arguing that as a successive tortfeasor, he should not be jointly and severally liable.
- The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Dr. Harris (appellant) then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, 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:
Does joint and several liability apply to multiple tortfeasors who act neither in concert nor concurrently, but whose independent acts of negligence combine to produce a single, indivisible injury that cannot be apportioned between them?
Opinions:
Majority - Alexander, J.
Yes. Joint and several liability applies to tortfeasors whose independent acts cause a single, indivisible injury. The general rule distinguishes between joint tortfeasors (acting in concert/concurrently), who are jointly and severally liable, and successive tortfeasors, where each is liable only for the harm they cause. However, an exception exists where independent acts of negligence produce an injury that is, by its nature, incapable of any reasonable or practical division among the tortfeasors. Here, expert testimony established Josephine Ravo's brain damage was a single indivisible injury. Dr. Harris failed to present any evidence upon which a jury could base an apportionment of the physical damage. The jury's 80/20 apportionment of 'fault' under Dole v Dow does not divide the injury itself; rather, it determines the right of contribution between the defendants and does not alter their joint and several liability to the plaintiff, who may collect the full judgment from either party.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'indivisible injury' doctrine in tort law, confirming that joint and several liability is not limited to tortfeasors who act in concert or concurrently. It clarifies that when a plaintiff suffers a single, inseparable harm from the successive and independent acts of multiple defendants, the burden effectively shifts to the defendants to prove that the harm can be apportioned. By distinguishing the apportionment of fault for contribution purposes (under Dole v Dow) from the divisibility of the physical injury itself, the decision protects a plaintiff's ability to achieve a full recovery in complex cases, particularly in medical malpractice, where multiple actors may contribute to a single outcome over time.
Unlock the full brief for Ravo v. Rogatnick