Fuller v. Preis

New York Court of Appeals · 1974 · Torts

35 N.Y.2d 425 (1974)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsWrongful deathProximate causeSuicidesuperseding causeirresistible impulsemental derangementorganic brain damage

Facts

Dr. Lewis, a previously healthy 43-year-old surgeon, struck his head in an automobile collision caused by defendants and thereafter developed seizures, was diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries, and experienced progressive deterioration, depression, headaches, irritability, and inability to continue his surgical practice. Over the seven months following the accident he suffered at least 38 seizures, including three on the day he shot himself. Plaintiff's treating neurologist testified that the head trauma caused organic brain damage and that after the final seizures Dr. Lewis was disoriented, irrational, and in a postconvulsive psychosis beyond his control. Although Dr. Lewis left suicide notes stating he knew what he was doing and was sane, plaintiff claimed the suicide resulted from an irresistible impulse caused by the accident-related brain damage.

Issue

Whether plaintiff introduced legally sufficient evidence to permit a jury to find that defendants' negligence proximately caused Dr. Lewis's suicide. More specifically, the question was whether the evidence was sufficient under the theory that accident-induced brain damage produced a mental derangement and irresistible impulse leading to the suicide.

Rule

Suicide does not, as a matter of law, constitute a superseding cause that bars negligence liability. A negligent tortfeasor may be held liable for wrongful death by suicide where the tortiously inflicted injury causes mental disturbance or derangement that destroys the decedent's capacity to resist the impulse to self-destruction; at minimum, if there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the defendant's negligence substantially contributed to the suicide, dismissal is improper.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Nina Cortez was struck by a delivery van operated by Owen Pike and suffered a documented head injury. Over the next six months she developed recurrent seizures and marked confusion, and after a seizure cluster she jumped from a balcony; her treating neurologist testified that the brain trauma caused a post-seizure psychosis that left her unable to control the impulse to kill herself.

If Owen argues that Nina's suicide automatically cuts off negligence liability as a superseding cause, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that suicide does not automatically bar recovery as a superseding cause. If the defendant's negligence caused mental derangement or disturbance that destroyed the decedent's capacity to resist self-destruction, the suicide may be treated as a direct consequence of the tort rather than a legal break in causation.