Which of the following is an exception to the limitation on liability for non-economic loss?

• A. A tortfeasor who violated a non-delegable duty
• B. A tortfeasor with no fault
• C. Damage solely to property
• D. A case arising from a motor vehicle collision

Answer: (A)

In New York, there is a cap on noneconomic damages (like pain and suffering) in medical malpractice actions, but this cap isn’t absolute. An important exception is when the defendant violated a non-delegable duty owed to the patient. A non-delegable duty is one that cannot be shifted to another party—for example, the hospital’s overarching duty to ensure proper care and patient safety. If a defendant breaches that kind of duty, the noneconomic damages against that defendant are not bound by the cap.

So why this option fits the exception? It describes a tortfeasor who violated a non-delegable duty—the precise scenario that allows noneconomic damages to exceed the usual limit for that defendant.

The other options don’t fit as explanations for an exception. A tortfeasor with no fault isn’t liable, so no noneconomic damages to carve out from the cap. Damages limited to property are economic damages, not noneconomic, so the cap doesn’t apply in the same way. A motor vehicle collision case involves different rules and does not provide the same carve-out from the medical malpractice noneconomic damages cap.