ÿWPC° 8#  UN+ %y 0Dà 0`Ãb#U>+4i}UPŒ 0ˆÜ 0Dd 0J¨w ò 0`ü 0T\ 0`°Æ 0^Ö 0h4 AOœ 0Dë 0r/ 0|¡ 0† 0£ 1u3 U,¨ 0dÔ 0@8 Bx D3• D/È B÷ U,U>@U6~±´B)eDCŽ AMÑU*Hv~_vÓݘHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý- ù-<èÀ( 9 &Courier Regular»\2 &Ø'ØaZ3|xü&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular(8(3ß«$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôø(83‚ª$¢¢Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(83‚ª$§§Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  ݃Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó ó2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd**'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New §Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€.ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd$2Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€.ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ€4ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€4XÔó óÌò òÔ€4¼ÔJanuaryÏ29,Ï1996ó óÔ€4XÔÌÌò òCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.Ô€.Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€.ÂÔÔ€4ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€.ÔÔ€.XÔPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÓ&€--X„d&ÓÑ#€--Xd#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ , ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€HLXXdÖXXdì7ÑÔ€/ÔÖ€0Öà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJanuary€29,€1996Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREMEÏCOURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌJOSIE€GRAY,€ADMINISTRATRIX€OFà à(ÌÒ € ÒÒ h ÒTHE€ESTATE€OF€PEGGY€M.€BUSH,à à(€€No.Ï0lS01„9505„FD„00066ÌDECEASED,à àà àà àà àà à(€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€OnÏCertified€Question€from€Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à à(€€SixthÏCircuit€Court€of€Appeals€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€No.€94„5ll5€€Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(€€ÌÙ€ÙßL€352;+'h| üæ. `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌFORD€MOTOR€COMPANY,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendant,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌSPRINGFIELD€SURGERY,€P.C.€ANDà à(ÌSARBJEET€S.€KUMAR,€à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendants„Appellees.à à(ÌÌÌÌÓ` °‚X.h—XÓÓÓÌòòFor€Plaintiff„Appellantóó:€€à àà àòòForÍDefendants„Appelleesóó:ÌÓÓStephen€L.€Swannà àà àà àà àWard€DeWitt,€Jr.ÌArlington,€VAà àà àà àà àà àMary€Ellen€MorrisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àTrabue,€Sturdivant€&€DeWittÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashvilleÌòòAMICUS€CURIAEóó:ÌÌE.€Blake€MooreÌJohn€B.€BennettÌSpears,€Moore,€Rebman€&Ì€€€WilliamsÌChattanoogaÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€/„ÔÔ€ Ôòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€/ÔÔ€/XÔÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àREID,€J.ÇÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÓÓà àPursuant€to€Rule€23,€Rules€of€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt,€the€Court€has€accepted€for€decision€the€followingÏquestion€of€law€certified€by€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€ofÏAppeals:ÌÌÓÓà8 àWhether€principles€of€comparative€faultÏshould€apply€in€Tennessee€medicalÏmalpractice€actions€so€as€to€result€inÏthe€apportionment€of€damages€between€theÏestate€of€a€decedent€who€actedÏnegligently€in€causing€an€initial€injuryÏand€a€physician€who€negligently€treatedÏthe€decedent€for€that€injury.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€decision€in€this€case€is€controlled€by€òòVolz€v.ÏLedesóó,€895€S.W.2d€677€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€accordance€with€thatÏopinion,€the€certified€question€is€answered€affirmatively.ÌÌÓ  ÓIÌÓ  ÓÌà àJosie€Gray,€administratrix€of€the€estate€of€herÏmother,€Peggy€M.€Bush,€sued€Ford€Motor€Company,€SpringfieldÏSurgery,€P.C.,€and€Dr.Sarbjeet€S.€Kumar€in€an€action€for€theÏdecedent's€wrongful€death.€€The€complaint,€which€was€filed€onÏFebruary€20,€1992,€alleges€an€action€for€strict€liabilityÍagainst€Ford€and€an€action€in€negligence€against€SpringfieldÏSurgery€and€Kumar€under€the€Tennessee€Medical€Malpractice€Act,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„26„115€(1980).€€The€case€was€tried€beforeÏa€jury€beginning€on€August30,€1993.€€ÌÌà àFor€purposes€of€this€opinion,€the€essential€factsÏare€as€presented€in€the€Sixth€Circuit's€order€certifying€theÏquestion€to€this€Court.€€In€the€morning€of€February€6,€1991,ÏBush€crashed€her€Ford€Tempo€into€a€utility€pole€inÏSpringfield,€Tennessee,€while€driving€approximately€30€milesÏper€hour.€€Bush€was€wearing€her€seatbelt€but€apparently€didÏnot€apply€her€brakes€before€hitting€the€pole.€€She€was€takenÏby€ambulance€to€a€hospital€located€only€a€few€blocks€from€theÏaccident€scene.€€At€the€hospital,€Bush€claimed€that€the€crashÏwas€caused€by€a€coughing€and€sneezing€fit;€however,€anÏemergency€room€physician€treating€Bush€detected€the€odor€ofÏalcohol€on€her€breath.ÌÌà àBush€complained€of€difficulty€in€breathing€and€herÏvital€signs€indicated€severe€distress.€€At€the€request€of€theÏphysician€in€charge€of€the€emergency€room,€Kumar,€who€hadÍtreated€Bush€in€December€of€1990€for€an€enlarged€spleen,Ïexamined€Bush€and€evaluated€her€condition.€€During€thatÏevaluation,€her€condition€appeared€to€improve,€and,€Kumar,Ïdetermining€that€his€services€were€no€longer€required,€leftÏthe€emergency€room€to€attend€to€other€duties.€€However,Ïimmediately€after€Kumar's€departure,€Bush's€blood€pressureÏdropped€to€a€dangerously€low€level€and€her€condition€becameÏcritical.€€Nevertheless,€approximately€one€hour€elapsed€beforeÏKumar€performed€surgery€to€remove€the€patient's€enlargedÏspleen,€which€had€ruptured€during€the€accident.€€Kumar'sÏtreatment€was€not€successful,€and€Bush€died,€"officially"€fromÏa€"ruptured€spleen"€due€to€an€"auto€accident."ÌÌà àThe€complaint€alleges€that€the€decedent's€death€wasÏproximately€caused€by€a€defective€and€unreasonably€dangerousÏpassenger€restraint€system€in€the€vehicle€manufactured€by€FordÏand€by€the€negligence€of€Kumar€in€the€treatment€of€theÏdecedent€for€the€injury€sustained€in€the€accident.€€Over€theÏplaintiff's€objections,€the€district€court€judge€instructedÏthe€jury€that€it€should€apportion€liability€based€on€theÏprinciples€of€comparative€fault.ÌÌà àFollowing€its€deliberations,€the€jury€reported€thatÏFord€was€without€fault.€€The€jury€specifically€found,€however,Ïthat€"Dr.Kumar€acted€with€less€than,€or€failed€to€act€with,Ïordinary€and€reasonable€care€in€accordance€with€the€standardÏof€acceptable€professional€practice€for€a€general€surgeonÏpracticing€in€Springfield,€Tennessee,€or€a€similar€communityÏin€February,€1991,"€and€that€"Dr.Kumar's€negligent€act€orÏomission€proximately€cause[d]€Mrs.€Bush€to€suffer€injuriesÏthat€would€not€otherwise€have€occurred."€€The€jury€also€foundÏthat€"Mrs.Bush€was€negligent€in€her€operation€of€her€1986ÏFord€Tempo"€and€that€"this€negligence€[was]€a€proximate€causeÏof€Mrs.Bush's€injuries."ÌÌà àThe€jury€attributed€55€percent€of€the€total€fault€toÏKumar€and€his€surgical€group€and€the€other€45€percent€to€theÏdecedent.€€The€jury€found€that€the€total€amount€of€damages€wasÏ$75,000,€and,€in€accordance€with€the€jury's€allocation€ofÏfault,€the€district€court€rendered€judgment€against€Kumar€andÏSpringfield€Surgery€in€the€amount€of€$41,250.€€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€appealed€to€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€ofÏAppeals,€contending€that€principles€of€comparative€faultÏshould€not€have€been€applied€in€this€case.€€The€plaintiff,Ïappellant,€specifically€contends€that€her€negligence€inÏcausing€the€accident€should€not€have€been€considered€inÏdetermining€the€award€of€damages.€€The€discharge€of€Ford€fromÏliability€is€not€an€issue€in€this€review.€€ÌÌà@ àIIÌÌà àOn€May4,€l992,€prior€to€the€trial€of€this€case,Ïthis€Court€released€the€opinion€in€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833ÏS.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992),€thereby€adopting€the€doctrine€ofÏcomparative€fault.€€The€Court€held€that€"so€long€as€aÏplaintiff's€negligence€remains€less€than€the€defendant'sÏnegligence€the€plaintiff€may€recover;€in€such€a€case,Ïplaintiff's€damages€are€to€be€reduced€in€proportion€to€theÏpercentage€of€the€total€negligence€attributable€to€theÏplaintiff."€€òòId.óó€at€57.€€The€Court€also€held€that€theÏprinciples€of€comparative€fault€would€be€applied€in€all€casesÏtried€after€the€release€of€òòMcIntyreóó.€€òòId.óó€at€58.€€Ì€Ìà àIn€òòVolz€v.€Ledesóó,€895€S.W.2d€677€(Tenn.€1995),€thisÏCourt€approved€the€application€of€comparative€fault€principlesÏto€a€medical€malpractice€case.€€In€òòVolz€v.€Ledesóó,€the€patientÏdied€of€testicular€cancer.€€The€jury€attributed€10€percent€ofÏthe€fault€to€Volz€himself;€45€percent€to€the€out„of„state,Ïnon„party€physician€who€first€treated€Volz;€and€45€percent€toÏLedes,€who€failed€to€treat€Volz€until€the€cancer€had€becomeÏinoperable.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àThe€Court€disagreed€with€the€conclusion€of€theÏintermediate€appellate€court€that€the€plaintiffs'€cause€ofÏaction€was€for€"loss€of€chance."€€The€Court€held:ÌÌÓÓà8 àIn€òòKilpatrick€v.€Bryantóó,€868€S.W.2d€594Ï(Tenn.€1993),€this€Court€declined€"toÏrelax€traditional€cause€in€factÏrequirements€and€recognize€a€new€cause€ofÏaction€for€loss€of€chance."€€The€Court€ofÏAppeals€was€in€error€to€remand€for€aÏretrial€upon€a€"loss€of€chance"€cause€ofÏaction.€€Further,€upon€careful€review€ofÏthe€record,€we€find€that€the€plaintiffs'Ïwrongful€death€action€was€the€properÏlegal€vehicle€under€which€their€causeÏshould€have€been€initiated,€tried,€andÏdecided.ÌÌÌÌòòId.óó€at€679.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€reference€to€the€jury€verdict,€the€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€The€jury€found€that€the€negligenceÏof€Dr.Ledes€was€a€contributing€proximateÏcause€of€the€death€of€Robert€Volz,€alongÏwith€the€negligence€of€the€non„partyÏHouston€physician€and€the€negligence€ofÏVolz€himself.€€Under€the€comparativeÏfault€system€adopted€by€Tennessee€inÏòòMcIntyreóó,€a€plaintiff€may€recover€fromÏmultiple€tortfeasors€as€long€as€theÏplaintiff's€fault€is€less€than€that€ofÏthe€combined€tortfeasors.€€Upon€theÏjury's€findings€and,€upon€the€trialÏjudge's€proper€charge,€the€correct€systemÏof€apportionment€was€employed€inÏaccordance€with€the€guidelines€set€out€byÏthis€Court€in€òòMcIntyreóó.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€680.€€Thus,€applying€the€principles€of€comparativeÏfault€to€a€medical€malpractice€action,€a€physician€is€liableÏonly€for€that€portion€of€the€plaintiff's€damages€that€were€Ïproximately€caused€by€the€physician's€negligence.ÌÌà àThe€Court€declines€the€invitation€to€reverse€theÏdecision€in€òòVolz€v.€Ledesóó,€which,€in€the€Court's€view,€wasÍproperly€decided.€€In€the€present€case,€the€decedent'sÏnegligence€caused€the€accident€and,€incidental€thereto,€theÏruptured€spleen.€€The€physician€negligently€failed€to€diagnoseÏthe€injury.€€Death€resulted.€€There€was€one€indivisible€injuryÏproximately€caused€by€the€separate,€independent€acts€of€theÏplaintiff€and€the€physician.€€Had€the€injury€been€caused€byÏthe€separate,€independent€negligent€acts€of€the€physician€andÏanother€tortfeasor,€the€liability€of€each€would€be€determinedÏby€the€fault€attributed€to€each.€€òòOwens€v.€Truckstopsóó,€_____ÏS.W.2d€_____,€_____€(Tenn.€1996)€[slip€opinion€at€22].€€TheÏprinciple€is€the€same€where€the€negligence€of€the€plaintiff€isÏa€contributing€proximate€cause.€€òòWhitehead€v.€Toyota€MotorÏCo.óó,€897€S.W.2d€684€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àThis€case€does€not€present,€and€the€Court€declinesÏto€address€in€this€opinion,€the€rights€and€liabilities€of€theÏparties€where€there€are€multiple,€separate€injuries.€€€ÌÌà@ àIIIÌÌà àIn€response€to€the€certified€question,€theÍprinciples€of€comparative€fault€apply€in€Tennessee€medicalÏmalpractice€actions,€so€as€to€result€in€the€apportionment€ofÏfault€between€the€estate€of€a€decedent€who€acted€negligentlyÏin€causing€the€initial€injury,€and€a€physician€who€actedÏnegligently€in€the€treatment€of€the€decedent€for€that€injury.ÌThe€physician's€liability€will€be€limited€to€the€percentage€ofÏthe€total€damages€attributed€to€his€negligence.ÌÌà àThe€Clerk€will€transmit€this€opinion€to€the€SixthÏCircuit€Court€of€Appeals€and€counsel€for€the€parties€inÏaccordance€with€Rule€23,€Section€8€of€the€Rules€of€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court.€€The€costs€in€this€Court€will€beÏtaxed€to€the€plaintiff.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àREID,€J.ÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.,€Drowota,€Birch,€andÌ€€€€€White,€JJ.