Summary
The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the jury's verdict in Lisa Haley's medical malpractice action was inconsistent and irreconcilable because it found Dr. Dennis was not negligent but nevertheless assigned fault and awarded damages. The court also held that the trial court violated the mandatory procedure for responding to substantive jury questions without notifying the parties or counsel. The amended judgment and order denying a new trial were reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial on the negligence claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the jury's special verdict was inconsistent and irreconcilable because it found Dr. Dennis was not negligent but nevertheless assigned him fault and awarded damages.
- Whether the trial court violated N.D.C.C. § 28-14-19 by answering the jury's substantive questions without bringing the jury into court and without notifying or consulting the parties or counsel.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Haley's motion for a new trial.
- Whether Haley's challenge to the partial summary judgment dismissing her deceit claims was adequately supported.
Holdings
- A verdict that finds a defendant was not negligent but nevertheless assigns fault to that defendant and awards damages is inconsistent and perverse because negligence liability requires findings of both a negligent act and proximate cause. The verdict required a new trial.
- When a deliberating jury requests clarification or additional instruction on a substantive point of law, the trial court must notify the parties or counsel before responding and must follow the procedure prescribed by N.D.C.C. § 28-14-19.
- The challenge to the partial summary judgment dismissing the deceit claims was without merit because Haley presented no persuasive reasoning or citations to relevant authorities.
Key quotations
“In order to impose liability for negligence, the jury must find both a negligent act and proximate cause.” (679 N.W.2d at 266)
“When the jury requests clarification or additional instruction on a substantive point of law, the court must notify the parties or counsel before responding to the jury's request.” (679 N.W.2d at 267)
“An administrative instruction is one that goes to the mechanics or process of jury deliberations, as for example, the jury's inability to use a dictionary or whether the jury's verdict must be rendered in writing.” (679 N.W.2d at 268)
Factual background
In late 1999, Lisa Haley was pregnant and was told by her regular obstetrician that she had miscarried. On January 9, 2000, she went to Trinity Hospital with severe abdominal pain and was treated by Dr. Dennis, the on-call obstetrician. Diagnostic testing revealed a ruptured ectopic pregnancy, and Dr. Dennis performed emergency surgery to repair the ruptured fallopian tube and stop the bleeding.
Procedural history
Haley sued Dr. Dennis and Trinity Hospital for negligence, lack of informed consent, deceit, bad faith, and battery. The trial court granted partial summary judgment on the informed-consent and deceit claims, and the remaining claims were tried to a jury. During deliberations, the court answered jury questions without notifying or consulting counsel; the jury then found Dr. Dennis not negligent but assigned him 10 percent fault and awarded damages. The trial court denied Haley's motion for a new trial and entered judgment for the defendants, and Haley appealed.
Remand instructions
The amended judgment and the order denying Haley's motion for a new trial were reversed. The case was remanded for a new trial on the negligence claim.