Fritts v. McKinne

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals · 1996 · Torts

Tortscontributory negligencecomparative negligencemedical negligencewrongful deathevidencemedical malpracticecomparative negligence

Facts

David Fritts was badly injured in a one-vehicle accident and, five days later, underwent surgery for facial fractures during which Dr. McKinne was to perform a tracheostomy. During the procedure, Fritts began bleeding profusely from a cut or rupture of the innominate artery, the surgery was halted, and Fritts later died. Plaintiff alleged Dr. McKinne negligently performed the tracheostomy and failed to control the blood loss, while Dr. McKinne claimed the rupture resulted from Fritts' anomalous artery and accident-related injury. Over plaintiff's objection, the trial court admitted evidence of Fritts' intoxication on the night of the accident and his substance abuse history, and instructed the jury on comparative negligence based on the automobile accident.

Issue

In a medical negligence wrongful death action, may the defendant physician rely on the patient's negligence in causing the automobile accident that led to hospitalization as comparative negligence reducing or barring recovery? Relatedly, was evidence of the decedent's intoxication at the time of the accident and prior substance abuse admissible for that purpose absent proper limitation?

Rule

Except in limited situations involving patient conduct bearing on the medical treatment itself, a patient's negligence that merely created the condition requiring medical care is irrelevant to a later claim of medical negligence. Evidence of patient conduct may be considered when it concerns matters such as failing to reveal important medical history, furnishing false information, failing to follow medical advice, delaying recommended care, or similar conduct connected to treatment; evidence admissible only on damages must be limited to that purpose or otherwise handled to avoid prejudice.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, Noah Benton crashed his motorcycle while speeding through a red light and suffered multiple leg fractures. Two days later, Dr. Elena Voss performed surgery at Red Prairie Medical Center, and Noah later sued her alleging she negligently severed a nerve during the operation. At trial, Dr. Voss seeks a comparative-negligence instruction based on Noah's reckless riding because it created the need for surgery.

How should the court rule on the requested instruction?

Explanation. The majority rule is that, except in limited treatment-related situations, a physician may not reduce or avoid liability for alleged malpractice by asserting that the patient negligently caused the condition requiring care. The relevant issues are the physician's standard of care and causation during treatment, not fault for the earlier accident. Because Noah's speeding merely created the need for surgery and did not bear on the medical treatment itself, comparative negligence should not be submitted on that basis.