 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
OPINION INJURY LIMITATION PERMANENT DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF PERMANENT CONSEQUENTIAL LIMITATION STATUTORY DOCTORS BODY MEMBER DAMAGES LANGUAGE EVIDENCE NY2D JUDGE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT APPELLANTS TESTIFY INJURIES ANKLE KNEE ORGAN OBJECTION NON-STATUTORY LANGUAGE COURT PERMANENT LOSS DETERMINATION ACCIDENT ULTIMATE |
SUSAN E. DUFEL ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. RANDY H. GREEN ET AL., APPELLANTS.
84 N.Y.2d 795, 647 N.E.2d 105, 622 N.Y.S.2d 900 (1995).
February 16, 1995
3 No. 20 (1995 NY Int. 035)
Decided February 16, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Michael J. Lonergan, for Appellants.
William M. Mycek, for Respondents.
SIMONS, J.:
The question submitted is whether it constituted error in this
personal injury action for plaintiff's doctors to testify that she
sustained (1) a "permanent consequential limitation of use of a body
member" and (2) "significant limitation of use of a body member", two
of the statutory components of the "serious injury" threshold as
defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d). We conclude that it did not.
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages for
injuries to her right ankle and knee sustained when the vehicle she
was driving collided with a vehicle driven by defendant Randy Green
and owned by defendant Beverly Green. Plaintiff's husband sought
derivative damages. The testimony of which defendants complain was
given during direct examination of plaintiff's expert witnesses during
the liability portion of this bifurcated trial. To establish that
plaintiff had sustained a serious injury, plaintiff's two physicians
were asked, in words tracking the statutory language, whether
plaintiff sustained "a permanent consequential limitation" and "a
significant limitation" of the use of a body member, function, organ
or system. Over defendant's objection both answered that she had. The
doctors were also asked in non-statutory language whether plaintiff
had sustained a permanent injury and both answered that she had.
At the conclusion of the liability phase, the court asked the jury to
determine whether plaintiff had sustained (1) permanent loss of a body
organ, member, function or system; (2) permanent consequential
limitation of use of a body function or system; (3) significant
limitation of use of a body function or system; or (4) a medically
determined injury preventing normal activities for 90 out of the 180
days following the accident. The jury returned a verdict finding in
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
