Two Tort Problems

Problem 1: I am driving my car and negligently cause my car to veer off the road. I am injured in the ensuing accident. During my subsequent medical care, the doctor negligently exacerbates my injuries. Could the doctor claim that I was contributorily negligent?

If my car accident is caused by another driver's negligence, then that driver is liable for any subsequent injuries I suffer as a result of negligent medical care. The reasoning for holding the negligent driver liable for the doctor's negligence is that negligent medical care is a foreseeable consequence of causing injury to someone. At the same time, there are undesirable consequences if doctors are not held liable for their negligent care when the patient’s negligence is responsible for being in the hospital. We do not want doctors to be more careful with patients who did not cause their injuries.

If another driver is liable for all of my ensuing injuries, doesn’t that remove the incentive for the doctor to exercise full diligence?

My professor explains: In the case of the negligent driver who causes my injuries, that driver is held liable for all of my injuries, true. BUT, the negligent driver would then be able to bring suit against the negligent doctor for malpractice (to be reimbursed for whatever he is held liable to the plaintiff). This puts the burden on the negligent driver to prove that the doctor committed malpractice, which is a significant burden given the difficulty of proving malpractice cases. This arrangement is similar to the joint-several liability damages scheme in other torts where there are several negligent defendants, but it is easier for the plaintiff to prove the claim against one of the defendants (any of the negligent defendants can be held liable for 100% of the damages, but then that defendant can bring a counter-suit against the other defendants for reimbursement). So the doctor still is held accountable for negligence to same extent as if he/she was treating a patient whose injuries were not negligently caused. It is appropriate for the negligent driver to bear the burden of proving malpractice, because if the doctor didn’t cause the ensuing injuries, then the injuries must have been caused by the negligent driver’s original act of negligence!

In light of all this, is it appropriate for a doctor to invoke comparative fault and claim contributory negligence on a patient whose negligence caused him to be under the doctor’s foresee-ably negligent care? Why is a doctor’s negligence “foreseeable” when another negligent driver necessitates the medical treatment, but it isn’t “foreseeable” when I am the one who negligent caused the medical emergency?



Problem 2: Jack drives drunk and is killed when his car veers off the road and crashes into a tree. It is later found that the manufacturer of the car negligently designed it in such a way that the car would crumple under pressure; but for the negligent design of the car, Jack would have survived the crash relatively unharmed. Can the manufacturer claim that Jack was contributorily negligent by driving drunk? Traditionally, the law held that a plaintiff's illegal activity precluded any claim for a defendant's negligence. But under a comparative fault system, in which proportioning the negligence between the plaintiff and defendant is allowed, should this preclusion still hold?