BlogLine

Cardoso v. Jacques: Eggshell plaintiff rule may cover drug addiction and subsequent relapse and overdose

4/15/25

By: Tyler J. Pare

In Cardoso v. Jacques, 2024-J-0613, 2173CV00199, the Massachusetts Appeals Court recently held that a driver who caused a motor vehicle accident could be held responsible for an injured party’s subsequent drug overdose and death. The court relied upon the eggshell plaintiff rule, which holds that where wrongful conduct causes harm to a person that is of a greater magnitude or different type than reasonably would be expected, because of the person’s pre-existing condition, the responsible party is still responsible for that harm. The court further rejected the argument that the decedent’s decision to take drugs was not the superseding and independent cause of his death. 

Lina Cardoso filed suit on behalf of her son, Mathew Cardoso, for wrongful death after he was injured in a motor vehicle accident due to the alleged negligence of the other driver. Cardoso suffered a fractured nose after hitting his face on the dashboard. Cardoso was a recovering drug addict who had abstained from taking narcotics by consuming Vivitrol, a medication that controls drug addiction. As he needed surgery for his broken nose, Cardoso had to stop taking Vivitrol and take narcotics prescribed by his surgeon for pain relief. Four days after the surgery, Cardoso relapsed and died from acute fentanyl and oxycodone intoxication. Lina Cardoso argued that the other driver was not only responsible for Cardoso’s fractured nose, but also responsible for his death.

The trial court denied the driver’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the driver was responsible for the decedent’s relapse and resulting death. The court held that drug addiction is a disease that squarely falls under the eggshell plaintiff rule. Further, the court held that the decedent’s decision to consume drugs was not an intervening or superseding cause that caused his death, as the relapse itself was caused by the driver’s actions. Addressing an interlocutory appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the decision. The court stated, “it may be highly likely or even a virtual certainty, given the short amount of time between the surgery and death, that a fact-finder will conclude that the motor vehicle accident was the factual and legal cause of the [decedent’s] nasal fracture and death”. However, a jury would ultimately determine if the two incidents were causally linked.

While the court’s decision to recognize drug addiction as falling under the eggshell plaintiff rule was expected, as alcoholism was already covered, the court’s decision to reject the defense of superseding or independent cause has significant implications for tort law in Massachusetts. The fact that the court not only imposed liability for the decedent’s subsequent relapse but also his ultimate overdose is a dramatic expansion of potential liability. Given the opioid crisis, it is likely that such issues will continue to arise. While the court appears ready to expand the scope of recoverable damages in this context, it remains to be seen what a jury will ultimately decide in this case given the facts.

For any questions or further clarification, please contact Tyler J. Pare at tyler.pare@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and are not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.