## Facts

- Dr. Kenneth M. Lewis, Jr., a 43-year-old surgeon, was in an automobile collision on December 2, 1966, and his head struck the car’s frame and window.
- He initially declined medical assistance, but the next day developed vomiting and later serious neurological symptoms.
- He was diagnosed with post-traumatic focal (psychomotor) seizures and suffered repeated seizures over the ensuing months.
- His ability to work and daily functioning declined; he became distressed about his medical condition and inability to practice surgery safely.
- On July 9, 1967, after multiple seizures that day, he shot himself in the bathroom shortly after stating, “I must do it.”
- The executor of his estate sued the allegedly negligent drivers for wrongful death, asserting the collision caused brain injury and seizure-related mental disturbance that resulted in suicide.
- At trial, the jury found defendants’ negligence proximately caused the suicide and returned a plaintiff’s verdict.
- The Appellate Division set aside the verdict and dismissed the complaint, reasoning the proof did not establish causation (and also stating the verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence).

## Issues

1. Whether a negligent tortfeasor may be liable for wrongful death where the decedent’s suicide is alleged to have resulted from accident-induced brain injury and resulting mental disorder.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s medical and circumstantial evidence was legally sufficient to permit a jury finding of proximate causation, rather than dismissal as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s dismissal and ordered a new trial.
- The court held that negligent tortfeasors may be liable for a death by suicide when the suicide results from a mental condition caused by the tort.
- The court concluded the plaintiff presented legally sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that the accident was a substantial factor leading to a mental disturbance culminating in suicide.
- The court emphasized the distinction between (a) dismissing for lack of legal sufficiency and (b) setting aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence; disagreement with the jury’s resolution of conflicting proof does not justify dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- Suicide does not automatically break the chain of proximate causation; it may be found non-superseding where the tort causes a mental disorder that produces an uncontrollable impulse or renders the person unable to resist self-destruction.
- On legal sufficiency review, the court must accept the plaintiff’s evidence as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor; if a rational jury could find causation, dismissal is improper.
- Proximate cause may be established by showing the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor; the existence of other contributing stresses or causes does not necessarily defeat liability.
- When competent, conflicting expert testimony supports competing causal accounts, the causal question ordinarily belongs to the jury rather than being resolved by dismissal as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that the record contained enough medical and circumstantial proof to allow a jury to decide whether the collision caused a seizure-related mental disturbance leading to suicide, so the complaint could not be dismissed on causation grounds and a new trial was required.


Fuller v. Preis, 35 N.Y.2d 425 (N.Y. 1974)