Slack v. Farmers Ins. Exch. - 5 P.3d 280 (Colo. 2000)

Rule:

The public policy rationale for apportioning a loss commensurate with wrongdoing is even more compelling when an intentional tortfeasor contributes to the injury. Under the terms of the statute, a negligent actor is only responsible for his contribution to an injury, irrespective of whether the other tortfeasor accidentally or purposefully injured the victim.

Facts:

Petitioner, Juliette Diane Slack, suffered injuries in an automobile accident. The following day, petitioner visited her chiropractor, Dr. Steven Lee Schuster, for treatment of her neck and back pain caused by the accident. Dr. Schuster submitted all charges for treatment to Slack's insurer, Farmers Insurance. Farmers Insurance scheduled an appointment for petitioner with Dr. Lloyd Lachow, a chiropractor. When Dr. Lachow examined petitioner, he touched her inappropriately and pulled hard on her neck, putting her in additional pain. Upon petitioner's complaint, Dr. Lachow’s examined petitioner, he touched her inappropriately and pulled hard on her neck, putting her in additional pain. Upon petitioner's complaint, Dr. Lachow’s license was suspended. Petitioner subsequently sued Dr. Lachow, claiming assault, battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and malpractice. Petitioner also sued the insurer, claiming that the insurer sent her to a chiropractor it knew or should have known would injure her. A verdict was returned for petitioner; however, fault was apportioned between Dr. Lachow and the insurer. The trial court apportioned liability based on the jury's decision and reduced petitioner's award pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111.5. She appealed and the court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner again appealed.

Issue:

Did section 13-21-111.5, 5 C.R.S. (1999) require the pro-rata distribution of civil liability among intentional and negligent tort-feasors who jointly cause indivisible injuries? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

Affirming, the court held that the statute's plain meaning required apportionment of liability among negligent and intentional tortfeasors who contributed to an indivisible injury, thus reduction of petitioner's award was proper. According to the court, the Colorado several liability statute did not differentiate between intentional acts and negligent acts in its mandate to apportion liability among tort-feasors.