## Facts

- Rebecca and Curt Cramer sought IVF services from Idaho Center for Reproductive Medicine (ICRM) in March 2003; blood tests were taken as part of the process.
- Curt’s results indicated he was HIV positive, but ICRM personnel, including Dr. Cristin Slater and nurse K.C. Crowley, informed the couple they were HIV negative.
- The IVF attempt failed.
- In March 2004, Curt underwent HIV testing for a life-insurance application; on April 12, 2004, his physician, Dr. Joel Swanson, told him the result was HIV positive and drew a second test.
- Curt called Swanson’s office on April 15, 2004 seeking results of the second test; none were available then.
- Curt disappeared and was found dead on April 17, 2004 at the base of a cliff; the coroner classified the death as suicide, and the jury later found that Curt committed suicide.
- Rebecca alleged that the 2003 failure to disclose Curt’s HIV-positive status foreseeably contributed to the circumstances leading to his suicide and also to her emotional distress.

## Issues

1. Whether the 2003 failure to report Curt’s HIV-positive result could be a proximate cause of his 2004 suicide, or whether suicide was a superseding intervening cause as a matter of law.
2. How Restatement (Second) of Torts § 457 applies in Idaho given comparative fault—whether it imputes later medical negligence to earlier actors or functions as a foreseeability rule subject to apportionment.
3. Whether instructional and related errors in the trial of the negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims required a new trial.

## Decision

- Reversed summary judgment for ICRM, Dr. Slater, and Nurse Crowley on the wrongful-death claim and remanded.
- Held that a genuine dispute of material fact existed on proximate cause and foreseeability; suicide was not a superseding cause as a matter of law on this record.
- Clarified that, under Idaho comparative fault, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 457 operates as a foreseeability rule and does not automatically impose liability for all later negligent medical acts on the initial tortfeasor.
- Reversed the denial of Rebecca’s motion for a new trial on her negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim due to the combined effect of instructional and related errors.

## Legal Principles

- Proximate cause in negligence includes cause-in-fact and foreseeability; where reasonable minds may differ, proximate cause and superseding cause are generally jury questions.
- A decedent’s suicide is not per se a superseding intervening cause; foreseeability and whether the act is extraordinary in light of the risk created control the analysis.
- In a comparative-fault jurisdiction, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 457 serves as a general foreseeability guide for later medical negligence and does not automatically impute all subsequent negligence to the earlier negligent actor.
- In multi-actor negligence cases, jury instructions and verdict forms must accurately integrate proximate cause, intervening cause, and comparative fault; material misstatements or omissions may warrant a new trial.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the wrongful-death claim against the IVF provider defendants because proximate cause and the effect of suicide could not be resolved as a matter of law, and it ordered a new trial on emotional-distress damages after finding that the jury was not properly instructed on causation and comparative fault in a case involving multiple alleged negligent actors.


Cramer v. Slater, 146 Idaho 868 (Idaho 2009)