Lyon v. Manhattan Railway Co., 142 N.Y. 298 (1894)
A court order for a physical examination of a plaintiff in a personal injury case must be part of, or connected to, an examination of the party before trial, not an independent procedure.
Summary
In this case, the New York Court of Appeals addressed the scope of a statute permitting physical examinations of plaintiffs in personal injury cases. The court held that the statute, Section 873 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Chapter 721 of the Laws of 1893, does not authorize a standalone physical examination independent of a broader pre-trial examination. The court reasoned that reading the amendment as part of the general scheme for examination of parties before trial allows for a fair and open inquiry into the truth, preventing surprise tactics at trial. A contrary reading would render the examination useless and potentially prejudicial.
Facts
The plaintiff, a young girl, alleged she sustained serious spinal and nervous system injuries as a passenger on the defendant’s train due to a collision.
The defendant sought a court order compelling the plaintiff to submit to a physical examination by two medical experts at her residence, in the presence of women of her choosing, but without the referee present unless she elected otherwise.
Procedural History
The defendant obtained an order for a physical examination from a judge of the trial court.
The General Term reversed the order, holding that a physical examination could only be ordered in conjunction with a broader examination before trial.
The defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether Section 873 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, authorizes a court to order a physical examination of the plaintiff in a personal injury action independent of an examination of the plaintiff before trial.
Holding
No, because the amendment to Section 873 must be read in conjunction with the rest of the Code provisions related to examinations before trial in order to ensure a fair and useful process; a standalone physical exam would lack procedural safeguards and fail to accomplish the legislature’s intent.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized that the amendment to Section 873 should be construed in conjunction with the existing framework for pre-trial examinations. The court stated: “It is a settled rule of statutory construction that an original statute with all its amendments must be read together and viewed as one act passed at the same time.”
The court reasoned that a standalone physical examination would be impractical and ineffective. The referee appointed to oversee the examination would lack the power to administer oaths or compel answers. Experts wouldn’t be required to make reports to the court and the defendant would only gain the ability to have two physicians inspect the Plaintiff for external symptoms, with no guarantee as to whether the expert testimony would be for or against the defendant.
The court observed that the term ‘physical examination’ implies more than just observation; it includes inquiry through questions and answers about the cause, nature, and extent of the injury. Without these disclosures the examination would be of limited value.
The court stated, “It must be held that the legislature intended to enact some useful and practical rule in the administration of justice, that would promote the discovery of truth and not to do a vain thing.”
Reading the amendment as part of the general scheme for examination of parties before trial allows the referee to take testimony, administer oaths, and authenticate proceedings, while the plaintiff is bound to answer proper questions about the nature and extent of the injuries. The Court stated, “It becomes a fair struggle for truth, and both parties may participate.”
The court also cautioned that using the power conferred by the amendment unfairly could create sympathy, stimulate prejudices, and possibly enhance damages against corporations. Quoting The Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, the court acknowledged the sensitivity surrounding compulsory physical examinations: “The inviolability of the person is as much invaded by a compulsory stripping and exposure as by a blow. To compel any one, and especially a woman, to lay bare the body, or to submit it to the touch of a stranger, without lawful authority, is an indignity, an assault and a trespass.”