Cramer v. Starr

Facts

The Defendant, Courtney Cramer, rear-ended a car in which the Plaintiff, Tammy Munguia was a passenger. As a result of the collision, the Plaintiff had disc protrusions in her lumbar spine. Months after the incident, Dr. John Ehteshami performed spinal fusion surgery on the Plaintiff to treat her injuries. However, this did not cure the injury and might have exacerbated her condition. The Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant. The Defendant filed a notice naming Dr. Ehteshami as a non-party at fault.

Under Arizona’s comparative fault regime (A.R.S. § 12-2506(B)), when assessing percentages of fault in a personal injury action, the trier of fact has to consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the alleged injury. When allocating fault, the trier of fact may consider the negligence or fault of a non-party if the defendant gives notice that a non-party was either wholly or partially at fault.

Defendant argued that the trial court erred in taking the comparative fault issue from the jury by striking her notice, thus violating A.R.S. § 12-2506. The Defendant argued that the Second Restatement § 457, which the trial court relied on, does not control Arizona law and would anyway be superseded by Third Restatement § 35.

The Plaintiff argued that Arizona courts have long embraced the original tortfeasor rule (OTR) laid out in Second Restatement § 457, a rule the Plaintiff characterized as one of causation that was not displaced or abrogated by the Uniform Contribution among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA), an Arizona statute. The Plaintiff argues that under the OTR, the Defendant cannot reduce or escape her liability by claiming that the harm was caused by Dr. Ehteshami. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant was independently liable for any and all enhanced harm proximately resulting from her actions and those foreseeably caused by a later tortfeasor.