Schechter v. Klanfer, 28 N.Y.2d 228 (1971)
In a negligence action, a plaintiff who suffers amnesia as a result of the defendant’s actions, preventing them from recalling the events surrounding the injury, is held to a lesser degree of proof than a plaintiff who can testify about the incident.
Summary
Robert Schechter, a 14-year-old, sustained amnesia and other severe injuries after a motorboat collision. He sued Robert Klanfer, the operator of the other boat, for negligence. The trial court initially instructed the jury to hold Schechter to a lesser degree of proof due to his amnesia, but later withdrew the instruction. The New York Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in withdrawing the instruction. The court reasoned that an amnesiac plaintiff, like a deceased plaintiff, is unable to provide their version of events and therefore should benefit from a relaxed standard of proof, provided the amnesia is convincingly demonstrated to be a result of the defendant’s actions. This lesser burden, however, does not eliminate the need for the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of negligence and freedom from contributory negligence.
Facts
On August 25, 1964, Robert Schechter and Alice Stone were involved in a motorboat collision. Schechter was operating his father’s boat with Stone as a passenger. Stone testified that a boat operated by Klanfer struck Schechter’s boat. Schechter claimed to have no memory of the events due to a head injury sustained in the collision, resulting in amnesia. Schechter suffered a fractured skull, arm, and jaw, and was comatose for several days after the incident.
Procedural History
Schechter sued Klanfer for negligence in the trial court. The trial court initially instructed the jury to apply a lesser standard of proof for Schechter due to his amnesia, but withdrew the instruction following the defendant’s objection. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Schechter appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. Schechter then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a plaintiff in a negligence action, who suffers amnesia as a result of the defendant’s actions, is entitled to a jury instruction that they are held to a lesser degree of proof than a plaintiff who can testify to the events.
Holding
Yes, because an amnesiac plaintiff, like a deceased plaintiff, is unable to describe the events leading to the injury, thus warranting a lesser burden of proof, provided that the amnesia is convincingly demonstrated to be a direct result of the incident caused by the defendant.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on the principle established in Noseworthy v. City of New York, which holds that in a death case, the plaintiff is not held to as high a degree of proof as when the injured plaintiff can describe the occurrence. The court extended this principle to amnesiac plaintiffs, reasoning that their inability to testify is analogous to that of a deceased plaintiff. The court acknowledged the risk that amnesia could be feigned and thus specified that the jury must be clearly convinced, based on medical and other evidence, that the plaintiff genuinely suffers from amnesia, that the injuries sustained were a substantial factor in causing the amnesia, and that the amnesia was a direct result of the accident.
The court quoted Cameron v. Dooley, stating, “There is at least some analogy between the situation here and that in the case where one of the drivers was killed in an accident, the only difference being that the version of one as to what happened is left untold because of death, and in this case the narrative is destroyed by the amnesia. Under such circumstances we should closely scrutinize whatever other evidence there may be which will shed light upon the manner in which the accident occurred” (p. 131).
The court emphasized that the lesser burden of proof does not eliminate the need for the plaintiff to present a prima facie case of negligence and freedom from contributory negligence. The jury must still base its findings on evidence. However, in this case, the court found that the plaintiff had introduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case, thus making the lesser burden of persuasion applicable. The court emphasized that the circumstances testified to by Alice Stone, that Robert drove the boat in a straight line, at a speed of four miles an hour, and with the boat lights on, were relevant on the issue of contributory negligence. It also could have found defendants negligent upon Alice’s testimony of the speed and course of the Klanfer boat.