11 N.W.3d 1
N.D.2024Background
- Michael Wollan died after being admitted to Essentia Health in September 2017; his heirs sued for medical negligence and wrongful death, seeking both economic and noneconomic damages.
- A jury found Essentia Health 25% at fault and another non-party 75% at fault, but awarded damages against Essentia in the full amount requested for certain categories, totaling approximately $500,657 plus costs.
- The district court entered judgment against Essentia for over $600,000 and denied Essentia's motion for a new trial.
- Essentia appealed, arguing the jury verdict was inconsistent and unsupported by evidence, and challenged several evidentiary and procedural rulings.
- The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether the verdict could be reconciled with the fault allocation and evidence presented, and examined the exclusion of settlement evidence with a non-party physician.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inconsistent Verdict and Damages | Damages awarded were within jury's discretion | Fault allocation and damages awarded are irreconcilable | Verdict is inconsistent, irreconcilable; remand granted |
| Sufficiency of Evidence for Damages | Requested damages were a conservative floor | No evidence supports full damages at 25% fault | No sufficient evidence supports award; remand granted |
| Admissibility of Settlement Evidence | Settlement with non-party is inadmissible | Settlement relevant for bias and economic damages | Exclusion of settlement evidence was proper |
| Apportionment of Costs and Disbursements | N/A | Costs should be apportioned based on fault allocation | Reversal/remand includes reversal of costs award |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. Rohrer, 714 N.W.2d 804 (N.D. 2006) (presumption is jurors do not intend to return conflicting answers to special verdicts)
- Barta v. Hinds, 578 N.W.2d 553 (N.D. 1998) (if special verdict is inconsistent and irreconcilable, reversal is appropriate)
- Zimprich v. N.D. Harvestore Sys., Inc., 461 N.W.2d 425 (N.D. 1990) (Rule 408 generally prohibits use of settlement evidence except for certain purposes)
- Thomas v. Stickland, 500 N.W.2d 598 (N.D. 1993) (admission of settlement evidence is the exception, not the norm)