Doe v. State of New York
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
189 A.D.2d 199, 595 N.Y.S.2d 592 (1993)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
In 1988, Jane Doe (plaintiff), a 38-year-old registered nurse, was attempting to restrain an HIV-positive inmate for treatment. The two state correctional officers in attendance refused to help restrain the inmate. Doe was stabbed in the hand by a needle contaminated with the inmate’s blood, and as a result, Doe contracted HIV. In 1992, Doe brought a negligence action against the State of New York (defendant). At trial, Doe presented medical expert testimony that Doe’s HIV infection was likely to progress to full-blown AIDS by 1996 or 1997 and that Doe would likely die shortly thereafter. Doe also presented economic testimony establishing that her average annual earnings were $30,000 and that the HIV infection reduced Doe’s work-life expectancy from approximately 18 to 24 years to only eight years postinfection. The trial court awarded Doe damages for past and future medical expenses, for past and future pain and suffering, and for economic loss. However, the trial court denied Doe’s request for future economic damages, holding that Doe’s estate could file a wrongful-death action to recover future pecuniary losses after Doe’s death. Doe appealed, arguing that she was entitled to future economic damages and that those future economic damages should not be discounted to present value because doing so would deprive her of her property without due process of law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fallon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.