|
Bartolone v Jeckovich
S. Ct. N. Y, 1984
Author:- Sam
Biers
Damages--Inadequate and Excessive Damages--Aggravation
of Preexisting Illness
Relevant Facts: Pl was
involved in a four-car chain reaction collision in Niagara Falls
for which defendants were found liable. Pl sustained relatively
minor injuries consisting of whiplash and cervical and lower back
strain for which he was treated with muscle relaxants and
physical therapy but was not hospitalized. Since the
accident, pl has been in a degenerative psychotic condition in
which he is withdrawn, hostile, delusional, hears voices and sees
shadows, refuses to cut his hair, shave or bathe and no longer
participates in any of his former interests. Io the words of his
treating psychiatrist, he is "a life lost".
Subsequently, however, he suffered an acute psychotic breakdown
from which he has not recovered.
Legal Issue(s): Whether the
jury could conclude that plaintiff's total mental breakdown could
be attributed to a minor accident?
Court’s Holding: Yes
Procedure: The jury
returned a verdict of $500,000 in pl's favor. The court granted
dfs' motion to set aside the verdict and ordered a new
trial unless pl would stipulate to a reduced verdict of $30,000.
Pl refused and took this appeal. The order should be reversed and
the verdict reinstated.
Law or Rule(s): A defendant
must take a plaintiff as he finds him and hence may be held
liable in damages for aggravation of a preexisting illness.
Court Rationale:
plaintiff, although apparently suffering from a quiescent
psychotic illness, had been able to function in a relatively
normal manner until the accident, which aggravated his
schizophrenic condition leaving him totally and permanently
disabled; a defendant must take a plaintiff as he finds him and,
therefore, may be held liable in damages for aggravation of a
preexisting illness; moreover, plaintiff should not be denied
recovery because his condition might have occurred even without
the accident.
Plaintiff’s Argument:
The theory on which pls case was tried was that the accident
aggravated a preexisting paranoid schizophrenic condition which
has totally and permanently disabled him.
Defendant’s Argument:
The pl’s pre-existing condition was the cause of the injury.
|
