You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Teehan v. Command Bus Co.

Citations: 251 A.D.2d 321; 673 N.Y.S.2d 1010; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6300

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; June 1, 1998; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a personal injury case, the plaintiff appeals a February 19, 1997 order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied her motion to overturn a jury verdict favoring the defendant, Command Bus Co. Inc., and sought a new trial. The appellate court affirms the order, noting that a jury verdict can only be set aside if no reasonable interpretation of the evidence could support the jury's decision. Testimony from the defendant bus driver, Lascelles Lawrence, and another defendant, Gregory Furman, indicated that while Lawrence was negligent, Furman’s actions were determined to be the sole cause of the accident. The court references case law supporting this finding. The decision is unanimous among the justices involved.

Legal Issues Addressed

Negligence and Causation

Application: In this case, testimony indicated that while one defendant was negligent, another defendant's actions were deemed the sole cause of the accident.

Reasoning: Testimony from the defendant bus driver, Lascelles Lawrence, and another defendant, Gregory Furman, indicated that while Lawrence was negligent, Furman’s actions were determined to be the sole cause of the accident.

Setting Aside a Jury Verdict

Application: The court affirms that a jury verdict can only be set aside if no reasonable interpretation of the evidence supports the jury's decision.

Reasoning: The appellate court affirms the order, noting that a jury verdict can only be set aside if no reasonable interpretation of the evidence could support the jury's decision.

Unanimous Appellate Decision

Application: The appellate court's decision to affirm the lower court's order was unanimous among the justices involved.

Reasoning: The decision is unanimous among the justices involved.