House backs bill to restore prior standard for medical-malpractice duty of care

Representative Mercer sponsored House Bill 342, which he said "is designed to reverse the decision of the Montana Supreme Court in 2023" and to restore the earlier pattern jury instruction used in medical-malpractice cases. Mercer argued the measure removes confusion and reestablishes a single professional standard of care applicable to board-certified providers.

Opponents, including Representative Revas and Representative Staffman, urged a no vote. Representative Revas said the bill could allow medical professionals to "evade liability when their conduct falls outside a reasonable professional duty of care" and used the 2023 case Cayman v. Glacier Eye Clinic (cited in debate as a 2023 decision) as an example in which foreseeability of catastrophic risk (blindness) was a central issue. Representative Staffman warned the bill would make it harder for injured patients — including children — to recover when severe foreseeable harms are at stake.

Supporters said the change restores longstanding Montana jury-instruction practice and would provide clearer guidance to clinicians and juries. The House voted 58 in favor and 42 opposed on second reading; the clerk recorded that "House bill 3 42 has passed second reading." The bill's sponsor and advocates said the change responds to a specific Montana Supreme Court ruling and is intended to avoid confusing jury instructions.

Why it matters: HB 342 addresses how foreseeability and specific catastrophic risks factor into a health-care provider's duty of care in malpractice litigation. Backers said it restores predictability for medical providers; opponents said it risks reducing accountability where foreseeable severe harms exist.