230 A.D.2d 548 (1997)
The passenger suffered injuries, which, if not alleviated by well-recognized and universally accepted surgical procedures, gave her a prognosis for a wheelchair-bound life. All experts agreed that the surgical intervention available to the passenger offered her the prospect of a good recovery and a near normal life. The passenger, a devout Jehovah's Witness, presented proof that she was obliged to refuse these recommended surgeries because her church prohibited the blood transfusions they would necessarily entail.
The trial court acquainted the jury with the existence of the reasonably prudent person pattern jury instruction on the subject of damage mitigation, but abandoned the reasonable person test in favor of a reasonable Jehovah's Witness standard.
- The court held that the state must not endorse religion or any particular religious practice, and remanded the matter for a new trial.
- The court held that the pattern jury instruction must be supplemented with the reasonable believer charge and that the court was not to permit the introduction of any theological proof as to the validity of religious doctrine, nor issue any instructions whatsoever on that score.
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the matter for a new trial on damages alone. The court ordered that the pattern jury instruction on the subject of damage mitigation be supplemented with the reasonable believer charge.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.