Robinson v. State

• Decision Date: 10 June 1959
• Parties: Lawrence ROBINSON, Claimant, v. STATE of New York, Defendant.
• Court: New York Court of Claims

Page 257

187 N.Y.S.2d 257

17 Misc.2d 775

Lawrence ROBINSON, Claimant, v. STATE of New York, Defendant.

Court of Claims of New York.

June 10, 1959.

Nathan L. Levine, New York City, for claimant.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Robert Schwartz, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for defendant. SIDNEY SQUIRE, Judge.

Claimant seeks $50,000 for the defendant's alleged negligence arising out of an assault by James Strickland at Rockland State Hospital where both were patients. The defendant maintained and operated said hospital.

On April 26, 1954 at approximately 6:45 a. m., claimant and Strickland were among 25 patients of Ward 16 in its Water Section comprised of a lavatory, water room and shower. Those in Ward 16 including Strickland, were regarded as the 'most disturbed and unpredictable' patients.

Claimant had been admitted to the hospital on April 15, 1954, eleven days before the occurrence. Strickland had been there for over 3 months, since January 7, 1954.

On the morning stated, without prior warning, Strickland assaulted the claimant, knocking him to the floor where they continued to struggle. As a result, Robinson required treatment at the Medical-Surgical Building of the Hospital from the date of the attack until June 4, 1954.

He sustained the following injuries: compound fracture of the left mandible, simple fracture of right mandible with displacement and partial facial paresthesia. He suffered from pain. His jaws had to be wired. He had a 'good result' according to Dr. Auerswald. There was no proof of resultant loss of earnings or value of the medical services entailed.

On the trial there was a sharp issue of fact as to whether any hospital attendant was in the room when the assault took place. We were not favorably impressed with the testimony thereon given by claimant and another former patient, Harold E. Remmele. The latter did not see the assault but was in the Section when it occurred. His testimony was far from satisfactory, being obviously biased in favor of claimant and prejudiced against the State. We prefer to believe the State's employee, Vernon Long, whose examination before trial was read into the record. It is a more believable recital of facts. The quality of his testimony outweighs that of claimant's proof, regardless of the greater number of witnesses.

Long testified with respect to the altercation which had taken place. Claimant maintained that Long was not present at the time. On this issue of fact, we find that Long was present. He was standing in the center of the room at the time. The assault occurred so quickly that neither this State employee nor any one else could have prevented it. As claimant said, 'It all happened so fast, and all of a sudden I knew I was hit, 'boom'. Immediately preceding the actual blow I wasn't aware that he was coming at me, or naturally, I would have ducked.' Strickland who had been sitting on a bench with others, arose suddenly and struck claimant on the left lower jaw, propelling the latter to the ground and grappling with him.

Claimant places great stress upon the contents of claimant's exhibit No. 5, Long's 'accident report' re the occurrence. This is a form used by the defendant at the hospital. One of the portions thereof to be filled in, is 'Witnessed by: name of patients and employees in vicinity:' Long filled in the name of another patient. Long had not actually seen the assault. Accordingly, he could not report that he had 'witnessed' it because he had not been an eye-witness. We believe that he was telling the truth when he filled out the report and also when he testified relative thereto.

Before the occurrence there had been two attendants present. One of them left and Long remained. He could not have prevented the assault. The presence of almost 25 other patients did not...