• A Tort Defendant May Name Plaintiff’s Subsequent Physician As A Non-Party At Fault, Despite The “Original Tortfeasor Rule”
  • August 23, 2016
  • Law Firm: Jones Skelton Hochuli P.L.C. - Phoenix Office
  • Arizona’s comparative fault statute (UCATA) requires the trier of fact in a tort case to compare and apportion the fault of all persons who are alleged to have contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. With a few exceptions, each person is liable only for his or her own percentage of fault. On the other hand, the traditional “original tortfeasor rule” states that if a negligent actor is liable for another’s bodily injury, he is also liable for any additional bodily harm resulting from the normal efforts of third persons in rendering aid, whether negligent or non-negligent. In Cramer v. Starr the Arizona Supreme Court reconciled these two seemingly opposing concepts.