Dow v. State

183 Misc. 674, 50 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2323
CourtNew York Court of Claims
DecidedSeptember 16, 1944
DocketClaim No. 27560
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 183 Misc. 674 (Dow v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dow v. State, 183 Misc. 674, 50 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2323 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1944).

Opinion

Ryan, J.

Claimant’s son, aged twenty-eight years, was a merchant seaman. In 1942 he became depressed over ship sinkings and the loss of his comrades. He grew worse and one night slashed his wrists in a suicide attempt. At Bellevue he was examined and committed to Pilgrim State Hospital being received there on July 22, 1942. On September 7, 1942, at 8:30 p.m. he was found by an attendant hanging from a ventilator handle in the water section of his ward. He had suspended himself by the strap from the restraining sheet in which he had been placed sometime before 5:00 p.m. and from which he [675]*675had freed himself. The man was not dead when discovered and prompt medical attention was given but it was unavailing. The claimant, as administratrix, sues to recover damages. She is clearly entitled to an award because upon the record before us no finding can be made other than to charge the State with negligence.

The hospital authorities had ample warnings of the patient’s suicidal tendencies and were keeping him in restraint. But they violated their own rules which provide that no patient shall be kept in restraint continuously longer than two hours and that a patient in restraint shall be visited at least every hour. This man was put in restraint earlier than 5:00 p.m. and was not seen again by any attendant or employee until 8:30 p.m. Moreover, there was only one attendant for thirty-one patients in the ward which was one for disturbed patients. Two patients, of whom Dow was one, were in private rooms. At the time that Dow hanged himself the one attendant was with twenty-nine patients who were awake and in the day room. This was insufficient care in any ’aspect of the case.

During fifteen years we have consistently held the State to accountability in situations like this one. Consistently the higher courts have sustained our findings. Citations are unnecessary. The waiver of immunity from liability granted by an enlightened Legislature in 1929 has received favorable interpretation and judicial sanction. Progressive government accepts the responsibilities that the modern democratic State owes to the individuals in its society. It is now well established that the wards of the Empire State must have adequate care and supervision. In this instance the State of New York must respond in damages to the decedent’s legal representatives.

To determine the amount of such damages we must now give consideration to two elements: (1) what were the probabilities that claimant’s son would be restored to health and to usefulness in society, and (2) granting his recovery, what pecuniary loss did claimant sustain?

On the first point let it be said that the State’s medical officers diagnosed Dow’s illness as dementia praecox, catatonic type, with a poor prognosis due to family background. Dow’s father had been several times committed to State hospitals and his sister was, at the time of trial, a patient in one. On the’ other hand there is psychiatric opinion before us, based upon the record of the case, that Dow’s history was lacking in the characteristic traits of dementia praecox, catatonic type, and that he suffered rather from a depressive form of illness [676]*676or from a manic depressive psychosis. Should we accept the less favorable diagnosis, that of dementia praecox, we are reminded that the superintendent of the hospital, through one of his delegated assistants, wrote to Dow’s mother, under date of August 27th, as follows: “ After examination, it has been decided that a course of shock therapy is indicated in his case and should have a beneficial effect on his mental condition.” Although the assistant who dispatched the letter referred to it as “ a form letter which is carefully worded not to mislead relatives, not to make them over optimistic, and give them an idea exactly what the facts are ”, we regard it as having an important bearing on the question under consideration.

According to their recent report to the Governor by the Temporary Commission on State Hospital Problems dementia praecox is a present day challenging psychiatric problem. It is recorded, that one out of every four newly admitted patients to the New York State hospitals suffers from it and that such patients constitute between 50% and 60% of all patients in the State hospitals.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Schrempf v. State
487 N.E.2d 883 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Ferraro v. Augustine
196 N.E.2d 16 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1964)
Estate of Maury v. State
15 Misc. 2d 1007 (New York State Court of Claims, 1959)
Williams v. State of New York
127 N.E.2d 545 (New York Court of Appeals, 1955)
St. George v. State
203 Misc. 340 (New York State Court of Claims, 1953)
Googe v. United States
101 F. Supp. 830 (E.D. New York, 1951)
Nott v. State
190 Misc. 1027 (New York State Court of Claims, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
183 Misc. 674, 50 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dow-v-state-nyclaimsct-1944.