Courtney Cramer v. Hon. Starr/ munguia/bejarano
240 Ariz. 4
| Ariz. | 2016Background
- In 2010 Courtney Cramer rear-ended a vehicle; passenger Tammy Munguia later underwent spinal fusion by Dr. John Ehteshami, which allegedly worsened her condition.
- Munguia sued Cramer for personal injuries; Cramer obtained an independent exam finding the surgery unnecessary and named Dr. Ehteshami as a nonparty at fault under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5).
- Munguia moved for partial summary judgment to strike the nonparty notice, arguing the original tortfeasor rule (OTR) makes Cramer liable for foreseeable medical complications, including negligent care.
- The trial court struck the notice solely on OTR grounds (relying on Restatement (Second) § 457); Cramer appealed by special action to the Arizona Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo and framed the dispute as whether UCATA (A.R.S. § 12-2506) permits a defendant to name and have the factfinder consider a nonparty physician’s fault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Munguia) | Defendant's Argument (Cramer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCATA permits naming a nonparty physician whose negligence allegedly enhanced injury | OTR governs: original tortfeasor remains liable for foreseeable medical complications; nonparty fault should not reduce plaintiff's recovery | UCATA and Rule 26(b)(5) require the trier of fact to consider fault of nonparties if properly noticed | UCATA controls; defendant may name a nonparty physician and the factfinder must consider and apportion fault |
| Whether the Original Tortfeasor Rule (Restatement Second § 457) precludes using nonparty-at-fault procedure | OTR is a rule of causation that imputes subsequent medical harm to the original tortfeasor | OTR cannot override statutory comparative-fault scheme (UCATA) | Court rejected applying Second Restatement § 457 to bar nonparty fault notices; OTR does not trump UCATA |
| Whether adopting OTR means automatic joint and several liability for enhanced medical harm | OTR means Cramer is severally liable for all enhanced harm and plaintiff cannot reduce Cramer’s liability by pointing to physician negligence | Comparative fault statutes displace joint-and-several; any liability for enhanced harm depends on factfinder apportionment | OTR is a causation doctrine but liability for enhanced harm is allocated under UCATA’s comparative-fault scheme |
| Whether the Restatement (Third) § 35 alters UCATA analysis | Plaintiff relies on Restatement authority to impute liability | Defendant says Third Restatement must yield where it conflicts with Arizona statute | Court adopted Third Restatement § 35 conceptually but held it must be applied consistent with UCATA (apportionment by factfinder) |
Key Cases Cited
- Piner v. Superior Court, 192 Ariz. 182 (1998) (UCATA requires factfinder to compute total damages and allocate fault among tortfeasors)
- Watts v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 239 Ariz. 19 (2016) (explains several-only liability under Arizona comparative-fault scheme)
- Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc. v. State Farm, 217 Ariz. 222 (2007) (broad definition of fault requires comparing fault among all tortfeasors)
- Dietz v. General Electric Co., 169 Ariz. 505 (1991) (trier must consider fault of all who contributed even if not named as parties)
- Espinoza v. Schulenberg, 212 Ariz. 215 (2006) (adopts Restatement (Third) rescue doctrine and recognizes foreseeability of rescue injuries)
- Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288 (App. 2009) (discusses Restatement § 457 as instructive on medical malpractice causation)
- Barrett v. Harris, 207 Ariz. 374 (App. 2004) (notes § 457 can apply to successive medical malpractice but did not impute liability on facts)