Caseflicks

New York Court of Appeals • 1987

Ravo v. Rogatnick

70 N.Y.2d 305 | 520 N.Y.S.2d 533 | 9 A.L.R. 5th 1170 | 514 N.E.2d 1104 | 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 18650

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Ravo holds that separate medical actors can be jointly and severally liable for a single, medically indivisible injury; comparative fault allocates contribution between defendants, not the injured plaintiff's right to recover in full.

Background

Josephine Ravo suffered severe, permanent brain damage at birth and was profoundly retarded by the time of trial. Her mother had gestational diabetes, and Josephine was an unusually large infant, making delivery difficult. The jury found that Dr. Sol Rogatnick, the obstetrician, committed eight acts of malpractice in prenatal care and delivery, including failing to obtain important medical information, misjudging the infant's size, and using improper delivery procedures. It also found that Dr. Irwin Harris, the pediatrician, committed three acts of malpractice by misdiagnosing and improperly treating Josephine after birth.

The medical evidence showed that both doctors' negligence substantially contributed to the child's brain damage, but no expert could identify what portion of the injury was attributable to either doctor. The jury awarded $2.75 million and assigned 80% of the fault to Rogatnick and 20% to Harris. After a $500,000 settlement credit for other defendants, Harris argued that he could be liable only for his 20% share because he was a successive, independent tortfeasor. Supreme Court rejected that argument, and the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the amended judgment imposing joint and several liability. Harris appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether separately acting medical providers may be jointly and severally liable when their negligent acts contribute to one indivisible injury but the evidence does not permit an allocation of the injury between them.

Holding

Yes. A defendant whose negligence substantially contributed to a single, indivisible injury may be held jointly and severally liable even though the defendant did not act in concert with, or at precisely the same time as, the other negligent actor.

Reasoning

The ordinary rule distinguishes joint tortfeasors, who act in concert or concurrently to cause one injury, from successive and independent tortfeasors. A later, independent tortfeasor ordinarily answers only for a distinct injury or for the aggravation attributable to that tortfeasor's conduct. But that distinction does not control where the harm itself cannot reasonably or practicably be divided among the negligent actors.

New York precedent recognizes that separate negligence can support joint and several liability when it produces a single inseparable injury. In Slater v. Mersereau, separately negligent contractors were each liable for water damage that could not be traced to a particular source. In Hawkes v. Goll, drivers who struck a pedestrian in sequence could be jointly and severally liable because the evidence could not distinguish the injuries caused by the first collision from those caused by the second.

Josephine's brain damage was one indivisible injury. The medical testimony identified several possible contributing causes associated with both doctors' negligence, but no witness could say with certainty which factors caused what part of the damage or assign a percentage of the injury to Harris. Harris likewise offered no evidence allowing the jury to isolate a separate, measurable injury caused by his treatment.

The Court emphasized that difficulty in separating harm will not automatically make every later tortfeasor jointly and severally liable. Here, however, the proof established both that Harris's negligence substantially contributed to the brain injury and that the injury could not be apportioned. On those facts, joint and several liability properly protected the injured plaintiff's right to full recovery.

Issue #2

Whether the jury's allocation of 80% fault to Rogatnick and 20% fault to Harris established that the brain injury was divisible and limited Harris's liability to 20% of the damages.

Holding

No. The fault allocation governed contribution between the doctors; it did not apportion the plaintiff's indivisible injury or limit the plaintiff's recovery against either jointly and severally liable defendant.

Reasoning

The jury was asked to compare the doctors' relative negligence under Dole v. Dow and CPLR article 14. That inquiry determines the equitable shares that tortfeasors owe one another through contribution after payment of a judgment; it is not a finding that the plaintiff's injury can be medically or legally divided into corresponding percentages.

CPLR 1401 permits contribution among persons liable for the same personal injury, including tortfeasors whose wrongdoing is concurrent, successive, independent, alternative, or intentional. Thus, an allocation of fault may be appropriate between defendants even when their liability to the plaintiff remains joint and several.

Because the jury found that both doctors breached duties owed to Josephine and that both breaches contributed to her single brain injury, its 80/20 allocation defined only the doctors' inter se financial responsibilities. It did not impair Josephine's right to collect the entire unsatisfied judgment from either doctor.