Court Opinion

ID: 9539673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:08:23.018058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:12.667258
License: Public Domain

Finley, C. J.
(concurring) — I agree with the analysis of the problem involved and the disposition of this appeal as set out in the majority opinion. Whether the defendant’s negligence proximately caused a state of mind or an ir-resistable impulse resulting in decedent’s suicide is a question which should be determined by the trier of fact.
The dissenting opinion characterizes the decedent’s act as voluntary, since it was not done in a state of delirium or frenzy. A statement that “she knew precisely what she was doing and what the effect of her act would be” is followed by a conclusion that her actions were controlled. Then a conclusion is expressed that because her act was voluntary the initial cause of the decedent’s injuries ceased to be the proximate cause of her death.
I do not know whether an act done by an individual not in a state of delirium or frenzy is controllable or not in medical psychiatric theory. I doubt whether the terms have a precise medical or, for that matter, legal meaning. In any event, the characterizations employed in the dissent do not solve anything. The testimony of the medical expert, as quoted in the majority opinion, was that the decedent knew what she was doing, “but she couldn’t resist it.” The rule of Arsnow v. Red Top Cab Co. (1930), 159 Wash. 137, 292 Pac. 436, imposes liability when (1) “the death of the person injured results from his own act committed in delirium or frenzy, and without consciousness or appreciation on his part of the fact that such act will, in all reasonable probability, result in his death,” or (2) “when the act causing the death is the result of an uncontrollable impulse, resulting from a mental condition caused by the *859injuries.” It seems to me utterly inescapable that the testimony of the medical expert puts the plaintiff’s case squarely within the second portion of the Arsnow rule, irrespective of the matter of delirium or frenzy.
I cannot believe that the dissent intends to dispute the accuracy of the conclusions of an expert whose observations are tempered by prolonged specialized study and research. There is nothing in the record to discredit the expert’s opinion or his qualifications. Opinion evidence is substantive evidence. Because of the present procedural posture of this case, we must give this evidence all inferences most favorable to the plaintiff. We cannot, therefore, say that as a matter of law the expert’s opinion does not emanate from a reliable school of medical thought, and we cannot ignore it.
It seems to me that the dissent, although it is written in terms of proximate cause, enunciates a policy rule that the defendant should be relieved of liability for the reason that causes other than the defendant’s negligence may have been more significant or played a more important role in occasioning the tragic event. I cannot accept this approach, because we are not faced with the problem of reviewing the merits of plaintiff’s case. Our function is to determine if the plaintiff presented substantive evidence on any material issue. The defendant may introduce controverting expert medical psychiatric evidence challenging the validity and reliability of the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, and his qualifications may be controverted. In fact, defendant may utilize any defense available; but these things must be done at the trial court level.
The plaintiff produced testimony to the effect that the injuries suffered by the decedent produced a mental state rendering the decedent incapable of controlling the impulse to commit suicide. This was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. I concur in the majority opinion and would remand the case for a new trial.
Weaver, J., concurs with Finley, C. J.