Quick Summary
Robert Schechter (plaintiff) suffered severe injuries and amnesia following a boat collision with Robert Klanfer (defendant). At trial, the issue arose whether Schechter’s amnesia justified a reduction in his burden of persuasion when presenting his case.
The New York Court of Appeals held that an amnesiac plaintiff should not be held to as high a degree of proof as other plaintiffs and that Schechter was entitled to have the jury instructed on this lesser burden. Consequently, a new trial was ordered.
Facts of the Case
Robert Schechter and Alice Stone, both 14 years old, were involved in a motorboat collision on the night of August 25, 1964. They had left a party at a lakeshore home and began motoring across the lake with Robert operating his father’s boat. Alice sat in the front seat to the left of Robert. Despite the clear and moonlit night and having the boat’s lights on, they collided with another boat operated by defendant Robert Klanfer.
Alice testified that they were traveling at about four miles an hour when she saw Klanfer’s boat about 50 feet away, heading towards them with its bow out of the water, traveling approximately at 30 miles an hour. The nighttime speed limit on the lake was 10 miles an hour. Robert could not testify about the accident due to amnesia resulting from his severe injuries, which included a fractured skull, arm, jaw, and other physical trauma.
The plaintiff’s medical expert confirmed that Robert’s amnesia was a result of brain damage caused by the collision. The central issue is whether Robert should be held to a lesser degree of proof due to his inability to recall the events leading to his injury.
Procedural History
- Robert Schechter filed a negligence action for personal injuries against Robert Klanfer.
- The trial court initially instructed the jury to hold Schechter to a lesser degree of proof due to his amnesia but later withdrew this instruction after Klanfer objected.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Klanfer.
- Schechter appealed, arguing that he should be held to a lesser burden of persuasion due to his inability to recall the events because of amnesia.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.
- Schechter appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the jury should have been instructed to hold an amnesiac plaintiff to a lesser burden of persuasion in proving contributory negligence due to their inability to recall the events causing their injury.
Rule of Law
Under New York law, as established in Noseworthy v. City of New York (298 N.Y. 76), a plaintiff who cannot testify about the events causing their injury due to circumstances like death or amnesia may be held to a lesser degree of proof than a plaintiff who can provide such testimony. This rule applies when there is clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff’s condition (e.g., amnesia) directly results from the incident in question.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court recognized that Robert Schechter’s amnesia prevented him from testifying about the accident, similar to how decedents in wrongful death cases cannot testify about the events leading to their deaths. The precedent set in Noseworthy v. City of New York establishes that plaintiffs who cannot testify due to circumstances beyond their control should be held to a lesser degree of proof. This principle was extended to cases involving plaintiffs with amnesia in Cresci v. City of New York and Cameron v. Dooley. The court reasoned that allowing an amnesiac plaintiff a lesser burden of persuasion acknowledges the inherent unfairness when a defendant could benefit from the plaintiff’s inability to recall event details caused by the defendant’s actions.
However, this does not shift the burden of proof or eliminate the requirement for Schechter to establish a prima facie case supported by medical and other evidence demonstrating that his amnesia was caused by the accident. If the jury had been properly instructed on applying a lesser burden of persuasion given Schechter’s amnesia, they might have found him free from contributory negligence based on Alice Stone’s testimony regarding the conditions during the accident.
Conclusion
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division and ordered a new trial. The court held that amnesiac plaintiffs should be held to a lesser burden of persuasion if there is clear and convincing evidence that their condition resulted from the defendant’s actions.
Key Takeaways
- The ‘Noseworthy rule’ may apply to an amnesiac plaintiff, allowing for a lesser burden of persuasion due to their inability to recall the incident.
- A prima facie case must still be established by the plaintiff, even when applying the ‘Noseworthy rule’.
- The court must be convinced by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff’s amnesia is genuine and caused by the accident before applying a lesser burden of persuasion.
Relevant FAQs of this case
References
Was this case brief helpful?