Rowe v. Munye

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that CIVJIG 91.40 improperly shifts the burden of apportioning damages from a plaintiff to a single defendant in a case involving aggravation of a preexisting injury. The court distinguished cases involving multiple jointly and severally liable tortfeasors and affirmed the remand for a new trial limited to damages.

Holdings

1. CIVJIG 91.40, as written, misstates Minnesota law because it shifts the burden of apportioning damages to a single defendant when the plaintiff alleges aggravation of a preexisting injury or condition. The plaintiff retains the burden to prove the nature, extent, duration, and consequences of the injury caused by the defendant, including the additional injury above the consequences that would have resulted from the preexisting condition.
2. The eggshell-plaintiff doctrine does not shift the burden of proving apportionment to a single defendant in an aggravation-of-preexisting-injury case. It makes a defendant liable for all harm legally caused by the defendant's negligence even when the plaintiff's susceptibility makes the consequences more serious, but the plaintiff must still prove the nature and probable duration of the injuries.
3. The erroneous use of CIVJIG 91.40 was prejudicial because the court could not determine whether the jury apportioned damages or instead relied on the instruction's burden-shifting sentence. Munye was therefore entitled to a new trial on damages.

Questions Presented

1. Whether CIVJIG 91.40 materially misstated Minnesota law by shifting to a single defendant the burden of apportioning damages between accident-related injuries and a plaintiff's preexisting condition.
2. Whether giving CIVJIG 91.40 was prejudicial instructional error requiring a new trial on damages.
3. Whether the court should extend the burden-shifting rule applicable to multiple joint tortfeasors causing a single indivisible injury to a single-defendant aggravation-of-preexisting-injury case.

Disposition

affirmed