 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clifford v. Geritom Med9/28/2004
likely reason for the jury's mistake in the first trial was the improper statements by defense counsel "alluding to potential superseding causes." Id. at 689 n.2. The supreme court observed that the trial court's articulated ground for granting a new trial was that the evidence did not justify the verdict and we affirm on that ground. Because we conclude it was unnecessary for the court of appeals to address the issue of superseding cause, we vacate the court of appeals opinion to the extent that court directly or indirectly addressed this issue in its opinion.
Id.
As recognized by the supreme court, any negligence by the hospital was not a superseding cause because it would not have occurred without the negligence of Geritom. We conclude that the words of the supreme court can be interpreted in only one way. The doctrine of superseding cause has no application in this case. Thus, Geritom cannot prevail on its superseding negligence argument.
B. Direct Cause
Direct cause or proximate cause exists if "the negligent conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury ." Flom v. Flom, 291 N.W.2d 914, 917 (Minn. 1980); Fiedler v. Adams, 466 N.W.2d 39, 43 (Minn. App. 1991), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 1991). Common liability by two separate tortfeasors may be created if the wrongful acts occur at the same instant. Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143, 145, 241 N.W.2d 641, 643 (1976). But when the acts of two or more tortfeasors are independent or separate and distinct torts, they are not considered to be joint tortfeasors. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe v. Blake, 311 N.W.2d 3, 5 (Minn. 1981).
In its motion in limine before the second trial, Geritom also moved to be allowed to present evidence that it was the Lithobid dispensed by North Memorial during Clifford's hospitalization, not the approximately five tablets Clifford took from the Geritom-dispensed Lithobid prescription, that was the direct cause of Clifford's death. The district court denied this motion, and also denied the motion for a third trial on this ground. The supreme court also addressed the issue of direct cause, stating that it concurred "with the district court's apparent conclusion that North Memorial would not have dispensed and administered Lithobid if not for the prescription information found on the bottle of Lithobid." Clifford II, 681 N.W.2d at 687. The supreme court went on to state that " he significance of this conclusion is that it shifts the question of direct cause from which source of lithium was responsible for Clifford's death to who was responsible for the erroneous prescription information on the bottle of Lithobid dispensed by Geritom." Id. (footnote omitted).
We conclude, and believe we are consistent with the supreme court in doing so, that the negligence, if any, of North Memorial was not a direct cause of Clifford's death.
C. Dismissal Under Rule 12
A complaint that fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted must be dismissed. Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). The only question before the reviewing court is whether the complaint states a legally sufficient basis for relief. Martens v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 616 N.W.2d 732, 739 (Minn. 2000).
Geritom argues that the district court erred in dismissing its complaint against the North Memorial respondents prior to the start of trial. The district court dismissed the North Memorial respondents on the ground that no common liability existed between them and Geritom. As discussed above, common liability does not exist between the two. Therefore, the district court properly dismissed the North Memorial respondents as a matter of law.
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|