Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 21, 1996; New York; State Appellate Court
The Supreme Court of New York County, led by Justice Carol Huff, issued an order on January 31, 1995, reversing a previous decision that had set aside a jury's liability verdict against the defendant. The court ruled that the jury's finding of liability based on common law negligence was reinstated, while the verdict was deemed excessive regarding damages. A new trial on damages was ordered unless the plaintiffs, Ethel Bernstein and others, consented to a reduction of her awarded damages for pain and suffering from $750,000 to $600,000 and from $1 million to $500,000 within 20 days of the order's service. Ethel Bernstein suffered significant injuries, including a torn left rotator cuff, after tripping over a torn rubber mat in a supermarket. The jury was instructed on two liability theories: common law negligence and negligent maintenance. The jury unanimously found the defendant liable under common law negligence, but the trial court later set aside this verdict, arguing the defect was minor and that Bernstein was uncertain about the fall's cause. The appellate court countered that the size of a defect is not determinative of liability and emphasized that the determination of hazardous conditions is a factual matter for the jury. The court also noted that the trial court's reasoning did not align with the plaintiffs' testimony regarding the mat's defect, which was substantial enough to cause the fall. The appellate court highlighted that a jury's verdict should only be set aside when it is clearly unsupported by the evidence and that the jury's findings are entitled to deference. The trial court's reliance on a prior case was also challenged, affirming the jury's decision was well-supported in the record.
Negligent maintenance principles were presented to the jury as an alternative liability theory, but the jury did not consider it after finding the defendant liable for common law negligence. Consequently, the Court of Appeals’ ruling in Piacquadio is irrelevant to this case. The motion to set aside the verdict regarding the defendant's liability should not have been granted. However, the damages awarded to Ethel Bernstein for past and future pain and suffering are deemed excessive, necessitating a reduction from $750,000 to $600,000 and from $1 million to $500,000, respectively. The $100,000 awarded to Irwin Bernstein for loss of consortium is considered reasonable. The defendant is entitled to a new trial solely on the damages awarded to Ethel Bernstein unless the plaintiffs agree to the proposed reductions. Concurrence is noted from Justices Ellerin, Wallach, Nardelli, and Mazzarelli.
