We see it every day: an insured driver is deemed liable for a motor vehicle accident. There is a standard claim as the injured party seeks compensation for their bodily injuries and damages related to the accident. Typical case and review, right? Generally, yes – unless you also consider the potential wrongful death action that may arise from the injured party’s subsequent suicide, allegedly committed during insanity or delirium caused by the defendant’s negligent conduct. If this seems like a stretch, one should consider the holding in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, in the case of Young v. Swiney. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74445 (2014).
The underlying accident in Young occurred on June 16, 2010. Decedent Joseph Young was
operating a pick-up truck in Cecil County, Maryland. Young was a forty-three (43) year old married
father of two (2) teenage girls, employed as a carpenter and millwright. On the same date and time, Donn Swiney was
operating an eighteen wheel tractor trailer owned by his employer, Industrial
Transport Services, LLC. Investigation revealed Swiney was operating the tractor
trailer at a high rate of speed and collided with the rear of Young’s pick-up
truck, causing a chain reaction collision. Young complained of several injuries
at the scene of accident before losing consciousness. He was extracted from the
vehicle and transported to the hospital.
By all accounts, Young’s life took a significant downward
spiral after the accident. Given his
injuries, he was unable to return to work and was subsequently terminated in
December, 2010. He underwent surgery on
his elbow and spine in 2011; however, being unemployed, he then lost his
medical insurance in March, 2012. Without health insurance, Young was unable to
obtain the required physical therapy to rehabilitate his cervical spine. The lack of insurance became increasingly
problematic, and a neurosurgeon recommended surgery to his neck and upper back
in August, 2012. Young’s employment
prospects were also dim, as a vocational assessment revealed that he was unable
to return to his previous employer, and that he had significant physical
limitations, pain and depression. These factors, coupled with his lack of a
high school diploma, made him a poor candidate to return to work.
In addition to his health and financial setbacks,
Young faced additional personal challenges.
His family members described a complete personality shift after the
accident, noting he was unable to control his anger, frequently argued with his
wife over money, and yelled at his children.
This ultimately resulted in his wife and daughters leaving him and moving
to Florida.
Young sought mental health treatment with Dr. Janet
Anderson, Ph.D. in May, 2012. During this visit, Young described the
significant pain he encountered since the accident, feeling suicidal,
depressed, being unable to control his temper and behavior, and the detrimental
impact of the accident on his entire family. Dr. Anderson strongly recommended
Young obtain psychotherapy for suicidal depression.
After a family visit on September 6, 2012, Young and
one of his daughters were involved in a serious verbal altercation that
resulted in the police responding to his home.
Later that evening after his
family left, Young committed suicide by ingesting alcohol, Flexeril and
Tramadol. Young left a suicide note and
referred to himself as a “loser”.
Young’s widow brought suit against Swiney and his
employer, individually, as Personal Representative of his Estate, and as
parents to the two (2) minor daughters. Dr.
Janet Anderson served as Plaintiff’s expert witness and concluded that Young’s
suicide was directly and proximately caused by the psychosis he sustained as a
result of the automobile accident. Dr.
Anderson’s opinion was based on a series of information including the autopsy
report, depositions, police reports, meetings with Young and his family, as
well as her training and experience in this field.
The Defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of
the wrongful death claims arguing that the motor vehicle accident in June, 2010
was not the proximate cause of Young’s suicide in September, 2012, and
challenging Dr. Anderson’s opinions as unreliable, lacking foundation, not the product of any reliable methodology,
and not based on sufficient facts or data.
Courts have long held that a Judge makes any
preliminary determination regarding the admissibility of evidence, including
expert opinions and qualifications. In
denying the Defendant’s motion, the Court relied on two (2) cases. In 2005, the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland held that suicide may be grounds for damages based on the negligence
of another if the
negligent conduct causes the decedent’s insanity, delirium or uncontrollable
impulse to commit suicide. Sindler v.
Litman, 166 Md. App. 90, 877 A.2d 97 (2005). Plaintiff’s expert provided such an opinion
in this case. Here, the Court found that
the Plaintiff produced enough evidence to create a jury question on the expert
opinion in question, such that a Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.
The Court also applied the Daubert standard in evaluating Dr. Anderson’s proffered expert
testimony. This evaluation includes an
analysis of: (1) whether the theory or
technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been
subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential
error rate; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its
operation; and (5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant
scientific community.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579
(1994).
By applying Sindler
and Daubert, the Court concluded that this issue be tried before a jury with
expert testimony. The Court also noted that the Defense pointed to several
issues that may be raised in a vigorous cross examination of Plaintiff’s expert,
as opposed to bases for summary judgment.
The lesson to take away from Swiney, is that a routine motor vehicle accident may have
significantly more implications beyond bodily injuries, property damages, and
lost wages. A claim may be made that an
insured’s negligent conduct resulted in an injured party’s insanity or
delirium, causing that person to commit suicide. Considering the Court’s decision in Swiney¸ with sufficient evidence to
support this opinion, it is still a question for a jury to decide.
Article submitted by Tara A. Barnes
No comments:
Post a Comment