Rowe v. Munye

Minnesota Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsDamagesAggravation of pre-existing conditionJury instructionsApportionment of damagespre-existing conditionaggravation damagesCIVJIG 91.40

Facts

Rowe was rear-ended by Munye and sought damages for injuries from the accident. She had a documented history of neck, shoulder, and lower back pain and was receiving chiropractic treatment before the accident, and her medical evidence described both a new injury and an aggravation of her pre-existing condition. Over Munye's objection, the district court instructed the jury under CIVJIG 91.40 that if it could not separate damages caused by the pre-existing condition from those caused by the accident, Munye was liable for all damages. The jury awarded Rowe damages, and Munye argued the instruction misstated Minnesota law and prejudiced the damages verdict.

Issue

In a case involving both new injuries and aggravation of a pre-existing condition, did the district court commit prejudicial error by instructing the jury that if it could not separate damages caused by the pre-existing condition from those caused by the accident, the defendant was liable for all damages?

Rule

When a plaintiff claims damages against a single at-fault defendant for aggravation of a pre-existing condition, recovery is limited to the additional injury caused by the aggravation over and above what the pre-existing condition would have caused on its own. The plaintiff retains the burden of proving causation and the extent of aggravation; the burden-shifting rule that makes a defendant liable for all indivisible damages applies to multiple at-fault tortfeasors, not to apportionment between a defendant's conduct and a plaintiff's pre-existing condition.

🔒

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 St. Paul, Lena Ortiz sued Devon Pike after Devon negligently sideswiped her car. Lena had longstanding migraine and neck-pain symptoms for which she had been receiving treatment before the crash, and at trial she sought damages for both a new shoulder strain and a worsening of her prior neck problems.

Which jury instruction most accurately states the damages rule in this single-defendant case?

Explanation. In a case with one at-fault defendant and a plaintiff’s pre-existing condition, recovery is limited to the additional harm the defendant caused, including any aggravation over and above the pre-existing condition’s normal course. The plaintiff, not the defendant, must prove causation and the extent of aggravation. The instruction making the defendant liable for all damages if the jury cannot separate them misstates the law in this setting. (Derived from Rowe v. Munye (n.d.).)