Williams v. Bright
230 A.D.2d 548 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a personal injury case, the duty to mitigate damages is assessed using an objective 'reasonably prudent person' standard. A plaintiff's sincere religious beliefs may be considered as one factor in the circumstances, but it does not create a separate, subjective standard of reasonableness based on that specific religion.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Robbins was a passenger in an automobile driven by her 70-year-old father.
- The car had traveled from New York City to Plattsburgh and was returning the same day.
- An eyewitness saw the car veer off the road at approximately 65 miles per hour and overturn in a culvert.
- Circumstantial evidence suggested that the driver had fallen asleep at the wheel.
- Robbins suffered a severely damaged left hip and a painful right knee injury.
- All medical experts agreed that without specific surgical procedures, Robbins would likely become wheelchair-bound.
- Robbins, a devout Jehovah’s Witness, refused the recommended surgeries because they would require blood transfusions, which are prohibited by her religion.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Robbins sued the lessors of the vehicle and others in the Supreme Court, New York County, a state trial court.
- A jury found the driver negligent.
- The trial court instructed the jury to evaluate Robbins' failure to mitigate damages using a 'reasonable Jehovah's Witness' standard.
- The jury returned a verdict awarding damages to Robbins, and a judgment was entered.
- The defendants appealed the judgment to this court, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the common law duty to mitigate damages require applying an objective 'reasonably prudent person' standard, even when the recommended medical treatment violates the plaintiff's sincere religious beliefs?
Opinions:
Majority - Wallace, J.
No, the common law duty to mitigate damages requires applying an objective 'reasonably prudent person' standard, not a subjective one based on the plaintiff's faith. Creating a special 'reasonable Jehovah’s Witness' standard constitutes impermissible state action that endorses a particular religious belief, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Such a standard would unconstitutionally require courts and juries to enter the 'forbidden domain' of evaluating the validity and orthodoxy of religious doctrines, a practice warned against in United States v. Ballard. The state has a compelling interest in ensuring fair proceedings and equal protection for all litigants, which an objective standard upholds. However, a jury may consider the plaintiff's religious beliefs as one factor among all other circumstances when determining if the plaintiff acted as a reasonably prudent person, but the objective test remains overriding.
Dissenting - Rosenberger, J. P.
Yes, the standard should be adapted to the plaintiff's religious convictions. Applying a facially neutral 'reasonably prudent person' standard would be discriminatory as applied to a plaintiff whose sincere religious beliefs forbid the recommended treatment, thereby burdening her free exercise of religion. The trial court's instruction to consider whether the plaintiff 'acted reasonably as a Jehovah’s Witness' correctly accommodated her First Amendment rights without requiring the jury to pass on the validity of her beliefs, consistent with United States v. Ballard. The 'eggshell plaintiff' rule, which takes the victim as found, should extend beyond physical conditions to encompass sincere religious convictions. The trial court's charge was a proper accommodation and should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision addresses the conflict between the tort doctrine of damage mitigation and First Amendment religious freedoms. The court establishes a nuanced approach by rejecting a purely subjective religious standard while still allowing religious belief to be part of the factual matrix for the jury. This prevents courts from unconstitutionally endorsing or evaluating religious doctrine (an Establishment Clause concern) but avoids the harshness of ignoring the plaintiff's motivations entirely. The ruling provides a framework for future cases by modifying the standard jury instruction, ensuring that a plaintiff's refusal of medical care is not presented to the jury in a vacuum, but is weighed against an objective standard of reasonableness.
Unlock the full brief for Williams v. Bright