You are here: / / Once the Jury Found Defendant’s Negligence Was Not a Substantial...
,

Once the Jury Found Defendant’s Negligence Was Not a Substantial Factor in Causing Plaintiff’s Injuries, the Jury Should Not Have Continued to Deliberate, Make Findings of Comparative Negligence and Apportion Damages—Jury’s Continued Deliberations Were Superfluous—New Trial Not Necessary

The First Department determined a new trial was not necessary where the jury went on to assess comparative fault and damages after finding defendant's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries.  The jury should have stopped deliberating at that point:

The verdict sheet in this personal injury action instructed the jurors to determine (1) whether defendant was negligent, and (2) if so, whether defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injuries. The jurors found that defendant was negligent, but that his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injury. The verdict sheet instructed that if the jurors answered the second question in the negative, they should cease deliberations and report their verdict. The jurors, however, continued deliberating and determined that plaintiff was also negligent; that plaintiff's negligence was a substantial factor in causing his own injury; that plaintiff was 95% at fault, and defendant was 5% at fault; and that plaintiff was entitled to $200,000 in damages.

This case is controlled by Pavlou v City of New York (21 AD3d 74 [1st Dept 2005], affd 8 NY3d 961 [2007]), a Labor Law case in which the plaintiff was injured due to a damaged crane hoist. In Pavlou, the jurors determined that the City (the owner of the construction site) was negligent under the Industrial Code, but that its negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury. The jury also found that the crane manufacturer was not negligent (id. at 75). The verdict sheet instructed that upon making these findings, the jurors were to stop deliberations. The Pavlou jury, however, went on to find the third-party defendant-employer negligent for operating a damaged crane; the jury then apportioned the employer's degree of fault and fixed the amount of damages (id. at 81). This Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial as against the City, stating, “[T]he jury should not have apportioned [the employer's] liability . . . or fixed the amount of damages, once it determined that the violation of the Industrial Code was not a proximate cause and that the crane manufacturer was not negligent. The fact that the jury attempted such an award was a superfluous act that does not require a new trial” (id. at 76). The Court of Appeals affirmed (8 NY3d 961 [2007]).

The same reasoning as in Pavlou applies here. Once the jurors determined that defendant's negligence was not a substantial factor or proximate cause (see PJI 2:70, Proximate Cause — In General; see also PJI 2:36) of plaintiff's injuries, they should not have attempted to assess plaintiff's own negligence and to fix damages. That they did so was a superfluous act that [*2]does not require a new trial. Alcantara v Knight, 2014 NY Slip OP 09030, 1st Dept 12-30-14


You might also like
TERMINATION OF TENURED TEACHER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY RULE.
THE PROMISE TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS NOT UNCONDITIONAL BUT RATHER THE DEFENDANT’S HAVING AVAILABLE CASH TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT HAD AVAILABLE CASH, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE ICY CONDITION EXISTED BEFORE 10 INCHES OF SNOW FELL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
INSURER’S MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, RESPONDENT HAD WAIVED ARBITRATION BY STARTING LITIGATION, TIME RESTRICTIONS ON A MOTION FOR A STAY DID NOT APPLY.
PLAINTIFF, PURSUANT TO THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION AND OFFERING PLAN, WAS THE OWNER OF THE BASEMENT SPACE USED BY DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS TRESPASS ACTION, BECAUSE THE DECLARATION AND OFFERING PLAN, AND THE REFERENCE TO IT IN THE DEEDS, WERE UNAMBIGUOUS, PAROL AGREEMENTS TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF THE AREA TO DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).
LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THIS SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION AGAINST A SWISS CORPORATION REQUIRES THE APPLICATION OF SWISS LAW, NEW YORK IS THE PROPER FORUM; MOST ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT REFLECT A SUBSTANTIAL NEXUS TO NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE POLICE ANNOUNCED THEIR PURPOSE (ARREST WARRANT) BEFORE ENTERING THE APARTMENT; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Unsworn Juror Properly Dismissed Based Upon the “Two-Hour-Trial-Delay”... Procedure Under Civil Rights Law for Disclosure of Police Personnel Records...