STEPHEN LOLIK ET AL.,APPELLANTS, v. BIG V SUPERMARKETS INC., DOING BUSINESS
AS SHOP-RITE, RESPONDENT.
86 N.Y.2d 744, 655 N.E.2d 163, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122
July 5, 1995
3 No. 291 SSM 39 (1995 NY Int. 180)
Decided July 5, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Submitted by Lawrence J. Zyra, for Appellants.
Submitted by Hugh H. Beaumont, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs,
and the matter remitted to that court for further proceedings in
accordance with this memorandum.
Plaintiff, Claire Lolik, slipped and fell on a wet spot on the floor
of defendant's supermarket and she and her husband instituted this
action to recover damages for her resultant injuries. The jury awarded
Claire Lolik $12,000 for past pain and sufferi ng, and apportioned
liability, but failed to award her damages for future pain and
suffering or to award her husband damages on his derivative cause of
action. The trial court ordered a new trial on future pain and
suffering, concluding that the jury's v erdict was against the weight
of the evidence.
On appeal, a divided Appellate Division reinstated the jury's verdict
dismissing the claim for future pain and suffering. It held that the
trial court could set aside the verdict and order a new trial only if
there was "no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which
could possibly lead rational men to reach the conclusion reached by
the jury on the basis of the evidence presented", citing Cohen v
Hallmark Cards, Inc. (45 NY2d 493). The test, the court said, is not
whether the jury erred in weighing the evidence, but whether any
viable ev idence existed to support the verdict. Concluding that there
was and, therefore, that the jury's verdict had "a rational basis", it
found Supreme Court erred in setting the verdict aside (slip opn, p
3).
However, there was abundant medical evidence from which the jury could
SNIPPETS:
BIG V SUPERMARKETS INC., DOING BUSINESS
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
for Respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted
Plaintiff, Claire Lolik, slipped and fell on a wet spot on the floor of defendant's
The jury awarded Claire Lolik $12,000 for past pain and sufferi ng, and apportioned
The trial court ordered a new trial on future pain and suffering, concluding that the jury's
a divided Appellate Division reinstated the jury's verdict dismissing the claim for future
It held that the trial court could set aside the verdict and order a new trial only if there
Concluding that there was and, therefore, that the jury's verdict had "a rational basis", it
However, there was abundant medical evidence from which the jury could conclude that the fall
The standard for making that determination, and reviewing it on appeal, was whether "the
The Appellate Division simply ignored the evidence supporting plaintiff's claim and
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simo ns, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
|
