Volz v. Ledes
895 S.W.2d 677, 1995 Tenn. LEXIS 13 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Tennessee's system of comparative fault, the doctrine of joint and several liability is abolished, meaning a defendant is only liable for the percentage of damages that is causally attributable to their own negligence.
Facts:
- In March 1988, Dr. Glenn Lewis diagnosed Robert Volz with testicular cancer in Houston, Texas, and performed surgery to remove a testicle.
- In June 1988, Dr. Lewis informed Volz that post-operative scans showed the surgery was a complete success and all cancer had been removed.
- Volz moved back to Memphis in January 1989 and did not have his scheduled follow-up exam with Dr. Lewis.
- In April 1989, Volz discovered a large abdominal mass and was referred to Memphis oncologist Dr. Claude P. Ledes, who diagnosed him with advanced metastatic testicular cancer.
- Dr. Ledes administered chemotherapy until July 1989, after which the mass could no longer be felt.
- In September 1989, Volz discovered a new abdominal mass, which Dr. Ledes advised was merely scar tissue requiring no further treatment.
- The mass continued to grow, and in December 1989, another physician's scan revealed it was a tumor, by which time the cancer had spread so dramatically that it was inoperable.
- Robert Volz died on November 13, 1990.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Volz filed a medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Claude Ledes and the Memphis Cancer Center in the Thirtieth Judicial District of Tennessee (a trial court).
- After Robert Volz's death, his parents continued the action as a wrongful death suit.
- At trial, a jury found Dr. Ledes 45% at fault, non-party Dr. Lewis 45% at fault, and Volz 10% at fault, and awarded the plaintiffs a $3,000,000 verdict.
- The defendant, Dr. Ledes, appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, finding the proof was insufficient for wrongful death but remanded for a new trial on a 'loss of chance' theory.
- The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Tennessee (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 the adoption of a comparative fault system in Tennessee render the doctrine of joint and several liability obsolete, thereby limiting a defendant's liability to their respective percentage of fault?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Brien, Chief Justice
Yes. The adoption of a comparative fault system renders the doctrine of joint and several liability obsolete. The court reaffirmed its holding in McIntyre v. Balentine, stating that a system linking liability directly to fault is the fairest approach. Under this system, a defendant is liable only for the percentage of a plaintiff's damages caused by that specific defendant's fault. It is inconsistent with the principles of comparative fault to retain a rule like joint and several liability, which could impose liability on a party that is disproportionate to their actual fault. The court explicitly rejected rules that would increase a defendant's liability based on the insolvency or non-party status of another tortfeasor, as this would make liability dependent on financial happenstance rather than fault.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the abolition of joint and several liability in Tennessee, cementing the state's transition to a pure comparative fault system. The decision shifts the risk of an insolvent, immune, or non-party tortfeasor from the remaining defendants to the plaintiff. By ensuring a defendant will only ever be liable for their apportioned share of fault, the ruling provides greater predictability for defendants and insurers, but potentially limits a plaintiff's ability to achieve a full monetary recovery if one of the responsible parties cannot pay their share.
