 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lewis v. Samson9/14/1999
of the five cases apparently are no longer good law in their own jurisdictions, at least to the extent that they are read as providing for complete indemnity against the health care provider. See Western Steamship v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp., 876 P.2d 1062, 1064 (Cal. 1994) (indemnification limited to hospital's proportionate fault); Coleman v. Franklin Blvd. Hosp., 592 N.E.2d 327, 328-29 (Ill. 1992) (there is no implied indemnity absent a pre-tort relationship between the successive tortfeasors).
{97} But even accepting Lujan's adoption of an indemnification approach, I have difficulty seeing why it would be available here, given the rationale for indemnification. This is not a case where, as in Lujan, weeks after an accidental injury a medical care provider refractured the original fracture site. See Lujan, 120 N.M. at 424, 902 P.2d at 1027. Why should Griego be entitled to indemnification from Defendants? He stabbed the patient multiple times. The jury that convicted him of second degree murder was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Griego intended to kill the patient. The patient died only hours later. The record does not suggest that Griego arranged to take the patient to the hospital for care; it would not be surprising if Griego left the patient to die of his wounds. In that circumstance, would it be "regarded as unjust or unsatisfactory" to deny indemnification to Griego against Defendants? And if the indemnification rationale fails, then Lujan is distinguishable. (To say, as the majority does, see ante, 62, that the Discussion of indemnity in Lujan was not necessary to the holding, is to say that no rationale whatsoever was necessary to hold Healthsouth solely liabile for the aggravation of the injury .) Without a reason supporting indemnification, I would assume that principles of comparative responsibility would apply. In short, even if Lujan states a general rule regarding indemnity against health care providers, the facts here demand a different approach. Absent some rationale other than that provided by Lujan, the responsibility of Griego must be compared to that of Defendants.
HARRIS L HARTZ, Judge
|