Stein v. New York, 367 N.Y.S.2d 286 (1975)

The presumption against suicide applies only when death results from the incident; it does not apply in cases of attempted suicide where the injured party is available to testify.

Summary

Stein sued New York for personal injuries sustained when he was struck by a subway train. Stein claimed he was pushed, while the defense argued he attempted suicide. The jury found for the defendant. The key issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a jury instruction on the presumption against suicide, given the defense’s evidence of a suicide attempt. The court held that such a presumption applies only when death results, as the injured party is then unavailable to testify, creating an imbalance of proof. Here, Stein could testify, negating the need for the presumption. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Facts

Plaintiff, Stein, was severely injured after being struck by a New York City subway train. Stein testified he was pushed onto the tracks. The defendant presented evidence, including testimony from the motorman and a witness, that Stein intentionally threw himself in front of the train. Hospital records shortly after the incident indicated Stein was in a “suicidal frame of mind.” Evidence was also presented that Stein was recently separated from his wife, who had moved away with their children.

Procedural History

The trial court found in favor of the defendant, New York. Stein appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court’s decision without opinion. Stein then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a plaintiff in a personal injury action is entitled to a jury charge on the presumption against suicide when the defense offers proof that the plaintiff was injured as a result of an unsuccessful suicide attempt.

Holding

No, because the presumption against suicide is designed to address an imbalance of proof that exists when the injured party is deceased and therefore unable to testify. When the injured party survives and can testify, the presumption is not necessary.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the presumption against suicide is well-established in cases where death results from violence. However, it declined to extend this presumption to cases of attempted suicide. The rationale behind presumptions is to correct imbalances in access to proof. In cases where death results, the deceased cannot provide their version of events, creating an imbalance. The presumption against suicide helps the next of kin prove their case. In cases of attempted suicide, the injured party is available to testify. “Under such circumstances, neither party has superior access to the proof and there is no need to assist the court evidentially as there would be where death has resulted from the accident, preventing the jury from hearing the decedent’s version.” Therefore, the court found no need for a presumption against attempted suicide. The court also addressed the plaintiff’s argument regarding the jury instruction on the last clear chance doctrine, finding that the charge, when read as a whole, allowed the jury to consider all the evidence and properly apply the doctrine.