Opinion
June 20, 1967
The State appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims awarding claimant damages for personal injuries in the sum of $27,451. Claimant, a physician, was a resident training in ophthalmology at the State University Medical Center. During a conference he was seated in a swivel chair furnished and maintained by the State and was thrown to the floor when a defective caster came loose and caused the chair to tip over and discharge the claimant. As a result, he suffered a torn medial meniscus of the left knee and a cast was placed on his leg from ankle to groin. Upon removal of the cast, claimant's leg was unstable and he was advised to exercise it. The knee recurrently buckled causing him to fall occasionally. There is ample evidence in the record to sustain the court's finding of a defective chair, notice to the State and consequent liability upon its part. Some three months following the accident, his knee buckled and he fell forward dislocating his shoulder. The knee continued to buckle and he once again fell, sustaining a multiple fracture of the right ankle. These various accidents required long periods of convalescence together with surgery; all of which resulted in delaying his training program and his entry into practice for a full year. The State contends it is not liable for the two subsequent accidents, reasoning that he should have had surgery for the first injury which would have strengthened the knee and claimant would not have been subjected to the two subsequent episodes. Upon all the evidence the court correctly applied the rule that when a person is injured by the negligence of another and he uses ordinary and reasonable diligence in the treatment of his injuries and another accident happens to him because of the first occurrence and injury, the person causing the first injury is also responsible for his subsequent injuries ( Zipprich v. Smith Trucking Co., 2 N.Y.2d 177, 180; Wagner v. Mittendorf, 232 N.Y. 481.) There was some divided medical opinion as to whether surgery should have been performed following the first fall. One of claimant's treating doctors specifically advised against surgery and claimant was advised by others to perform exercises. Additionally, there was ample medical testimony causally connecting the latter two episodes with the original injury. The court concluded upon all the evidence that the claimant had acted reasonably in not undergoing such an operation. Claimant's medical expert also testified that the second and third episodes were caused by the original injury. In this connection, it appears that the State had claimant examined by an expert whom they chose not to call as a witness. Under these circumstances, the trial court "had the right to infer that his testimony would not have contradicted or qualified that of the" claimant's doctor ( Laffin v. Ryan, 4 A.D.2d 21, 24-25.) Judgment affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P.J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gabrielli, J.