The “Minimally Conscious” Plaintiff: A Potential New Claim for Damages in New Jersey Personal Injury Lawsuits
William L. Kuzmin, Esq.
Jul 23, 2024
In New Jersey personal injury lawsuits, the legal landscape for awarding pain and suffering damages has long been established. Historically, these damages could only be awarded for conscious pain and suffering, as seen in the landmark case of Lewis v. Read (1963). This principle was further reinforced in Eyoma v. Falco (1991), where the court denied pain and suffering damages to a comatose plaintiff, reasoning that a person in a coma is unaware of any loss of enjoyment of life and thus cannot suffer anguish from such a loss.
However, the medical understanding of consciousness has evolved significantly since these rulings. Recent advancements suggest that individuals in a “minimally conscious” state may experience pain, suffering, feelings and emotions, challenging the logic that underpinned the Eyoma decision. This evolving medical perspective opens the door to re-examining the criteria for awarding pain and suffering damages to comatose plaintiffs in New Jersey personal injury lawsuits.
Historical Context: Lewis and Eyoma
The Lewis case set a precedent by establishing that in New Jersey personal injury lawsuits, pain and suffering damages require conscious awareness. This was a pivotal decision that shaped subsequent rulings, including Eyoma v. Falco. In Eyoma, the court upheld the principle that a comatose plaintiff could not be awarded pain and suffering damages, as they were deemed incapable of experiencing such pain.
The Eyoma ruling has been widely accepted and rarely challenged over the past three decades. However, the medical community’s understanding of consciousness has advanced, suggesting that the Eyoma decision may no longer be entirely applicable.
The Emergence of the “Minimally Conscious” State
Recent medical literature has introduced the concept of a “minimally conscious” state, where individuals may retain some level of consciousness despite being in a coma. This challenges the traditional view of consciousness as an all-or-none phenomenon. For instance, a study by Kotchoubey (2014) argues that consciousness exists on a spectrum, with several transitional stages between full awareness and complete unawareness.
Similarly, Charpier (2023) discusses the gradual breakdown of brain activity leading to death, suggesting that there is a “twilight zone” where brain function and consciousness decline slowly. This new understanding implies that individuals in a minimally conscious state may experience some form of pain and suffering, contrary to the assumptions made in Eyoma.
Implications for Legal Claims
The evolving medical perspective on consciousness has significant implications for New Jersey personal injury lawsuits involving comatose plaintiffs. If it can be demonstrated that a plaintiff in a minimally conscious state experiences pain and suffering, the rationale for denying such damages, as established in Eyoma, may no longer hold.
This shift in understanding could pave the way for new claims for damages in New Jersey personal injury lawsuits, allowing plaintiffs in minimally conscious states to seek compensation for their pain and suffering. This would represent a significant development in personal injury law, aligning legal principles with contemporary medical knowledge.
The Role of Expert Testimony
In light of these advancements, expert testimony from neurologists and other medical professionals will become increasingly crucial in New Jersey personal injury cases involving comatose plaintiffs. These experts can provide detailed insights into the patient’s level of consciousness and potential for experiencing pain and suffering. Their testimony can help bridge the gap between medical science and legal standards, ensuring that courts have the most accurate and up-to-date information when making decisions about damages.
Conclusion
The concept of a “minimally conscious” state challenges the long-standing legal principles established in cases like Lewis and Eyoma. As medical science continues to advance, the legal system must adapt to ensure that plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits receive fair compensation for their injuries. Revisiting the criteria for awarding pain and suffering damages to comatose plaintiffs is a crucial step in this process.
By staying informed about these developments, legal professionals can better advocate for their clients and ensure that justice is served. As we continue to learn more about the complexities of consciousness, it is essential to re-evaluate our legal standards and practices to reflect this new understanding.
Contact Us
If you suffered a serious injury due to negligence you may be able to file a personal injury lawsuit and finding a good law office can make a huge difference to the outcome of your case. The law offices of Cohen, Placitella & Roth have many years of experience guiding clients through these options and fighting on their behalf.
At CPR Law, we strive to make lasting impacts in our clients’ lives by seeking justice for them and by doing what’s right. Contact our team of lawyers at (888) 572-7388 to schedule your consultation today.
William L. Kuzmin
Member VIEW BIO
