Williams And Robbins v. Bright

658 N.Y.S.2d 910 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Robbins (P) was a passenger in a car driven by her 70-year-old father. A witness saw the car veer off the road at 65 mph and turn over in a culvert. There was circumstantial evidence that the driver had fallen asleep at the wheel. This was conduct that the jury found to be both negligent and a proximate cause of the accident. P suffered a severely damaged right hip as well as painful injury to her left knee. Her own expert's testimony revealed that these injuries were not alleviated by well-recognized and universally accepted surgical procedures. All experts agreed that surgical intervention offered her the prospect of a good recovery and a near normal life. P was a devout Jehovah’s Witness, and she refused the recommended surgeries because her church prohibits blood transfusions. The trial court acquainted the jury with the existence of the reasonably prudent person standard and the duty of damage mitigation. But the trial court charged the jury with something different in that P was to be judged as a reasonably prudent Jehovah’s Witness in refusing surgery, which would involve blood transfusions. The verdict for P was $163,244.81 for past medical bills and $1,500,000 for past pain, suffering and disability, $3,982,900 for future hospital, medical and nursing, and $4,000,000 for future pain and suffering, disability and loss of enjoyment of life. The trial judge found the verdict for pain and suffering to be excessive, and it was reduced to $1,000,000 and the future to $2,750,000. The trial court abandoned the reasonably prudent person standard for the Jehovah Standard on what it reasoned were First Amendment issues. The trial court reasoned that if the jury considered her under the reasonable person standard, that such consideration would be an unlawful restraint on her freedom of religion. D appealed. Ds did not contest liability but do contest the trial court’s abrogation of P’s duty to mitigate damages and the trial court’s adherence to a new standard for P to act as a reasonable Jehovah’s Witness.