Montana lawmakers hear competing views on medical-malpractice jury instruction bill

Representative Mercer opened testimony for House Bill 342, which would codify a jury-instruction standard stating that the foreseeability of a specific risk does not raise or heighten the duty owed by a medical provider beyond the reasonable standard of care applicable to that provider.

Mercer described the measure as a response to the Montana Supreme Court ecision in Cayman v. Glacier Eye Clinic (2023), which he said shifted instruction toward a foreseeability approach. Mercer said the bill would "reestablish" long-standing pattern jury instructions used by district courts and quoted the proposed language: "the foreseeability of risks or of a specific risk does not change or heighten the duty owed beyond the reasonable standard of care applicable to the medical provider."

Proponents including representatives of the Montana Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Montana chapter), the Montana Hospital Association and physician groups argued the change would preserve a reasonable standard of care and avoid defensive medicine, help retain specialists in rural areas and keep malpractice insurance costs from rising. Nathan Allen, an emergency physician, described clinical decision-making as balancing multiple foreseeable severe risks and said the jury instruction should preserve expert-driven standards for medical practice.

Opponents, represented by trial lawyers including Al Smith, said the proposed statutory change would amount to special protections for medical defendants and noted that proportionate-duty or "disproportionate care" instructions had been used by some Montana trial judges in prior cases. Opponents warned the measure would overturn recent case law and reduce judicial flexibility in instructing juries.

Committee members questioned the legal background of the pattern jury instructions and whether courts had previously used the proportional instruction; both sides pointed to case law and to the role of expert testimony in malpractice cases. The hearing produced extensive technical testimony from physicians and lawyers but no formal committee action was taken during the hearing; the sponsor closed and the committee recorded the hearing as concluded. The bill was later held for executive action rather than voted on immediately.

Ending: Supporters said the bill would preserve a consistent, expert-driven standard of care; opponents said it would create a legal advantage for medical defendants. The committee concluded the hearing and left the bill for later executive action.