## Facts

- Courtney Rene Cramer rear-ended a vehicle in which Tammy Munguia was a passenger; Munguia alleged persistent low-back pain from the collision.
- About a year later, Munguia underwent back surgery performed by Dr. John Ehteshami; the surgery did not resolve symptoms and allegedly worsened her condition.
- Munguia sued Cramer for personal-injury damages, including damages tied to the post-accident surgery outcome.
- Cramer timely filed a notice of nonparty at fault identifying Dr. Ehteshami, asserting that negligent medical treatment contributed to any enhanced harm.
- The superior court struck the notice, reasoning that the common-law original tortfeasor rule made the original tortfeasor liable for foreseeable negligent medical treatment, leaving no basis to allocate fault to the surgeon.
- Cramer sought special-action relief; the Arizona Supreme Court accepted review.

## Issues

1. Whether Arizona’s comparative fault statute (A.R.S. § 12-2506) permits the trier of fact to consider and allocate fault to a nonparty treating physician for negligent medical treatment that enhanced the plaintiff’s injury, notwithstanding the original tortfeasor rule.
2. Whether the original tortfeasor remains potentially liable for enhanced harm from foreseeable negligent medical treatment, and if so, whether that liability is subject to fault allocation rather than automatic attribution of the physician’s negligence.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the order striking Cramer’s notice of nonparty at fault and remanded.
- The court held that the original tortfeasor rule does not bar a defendant from alleging and proving, or the trier of fact from considering, the fault of a nonparty treating physician.
- The court also held that an original tortfeasor may be liable for enhanced harm proximately resulting from reasonably required medical treatment, including negligent treatment, but liability is determined through comparative fault allocation rather than automatic imputation of the physician’s negligence.

## Legal Principles

- Under A.R.S. § 12-2506(B), the trier of fact must consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the alleged injury, including nonparties, when properly noticed.
- Arizona procedure permits allocating fault to a nonparty through a timely notice of nonparty at fault.
- The original tortfeasor rule supports liability for enhanced harm from subsequent medical treatment that is a foreseeable consequence of the original injury, but it cannot be applied in a way that conflicts with statutory comparative fault.
- Fault for enhanced harm from negligent medical treatment may be apportioned between the original tortfeasor and the medical provider; the plaintiff must still prove causation and the extent of harm attributable to each actor.

## Conclusion

Arizona’s comparative fault scheme requires consideration of all contributing fault, so a defendant may identify a nonparty treating physician and seek allocation of fault for negligent treatment that enhanced the plaintiff’s injuries, while the original tortfeasor’s responsibility for enhanced harm remains a fact-bound question resolved by comparative apportionment.


Cramer v. Starr, 375 P.3d 69 (Ariz. 2016)