You are here: / / WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PARENTAL GUIDANCE...

WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PARENTAL GUIDANCE NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

The Second Department determined the jury verdict in this wrongful death case which awarded zero damages for loss of parental guidance was not against the weight of the evidence:

“In a wrongful death action, an award of damages is limited to the fair and just compensation for the pecuniary injuries resulting from the decedent’s death to the persons for whose benefit the action is brought” …. “In the case of a decedent who was not a wage earner, pecuniary injuries may be calculated, in part, from the increased expenditures required to continue the services she [or he] provided, as well as the compensable losses of a personal nature, such as loss of guidance” … . “The determination of pecuniary damages in a wrongful death action is peculiarly within the province of the jury” … . Here, we find that the evidence on the issue of the loss of the decedent’s parental guidance did not so preponderate in favor of the plaintiff such that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Estevez v Tam, 2017 NY Slip Op 01675, 2nd Dept 3-8-17

NEGLIGENCE (WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PARENTAL GUIDANCE NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/WRONGFUL DEATH (WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PARENTAL GUIDANCE NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PARENTAL GUIDANCE NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/PARENTAL GUIDANCE (WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PARENTAL GUIDANCE NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)

You might also like
Lost Profits Sufficiently Proven in Breach of Contract Action—Criteria Explained
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED OTHER SAFETY DEVICES (LADDERS, SCAFFOLDS) WERE AVAILABLE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (SECOND DEPT).
Single Use of Vehicle to Carry Passengers “For Hire” Did Not Justify Excluding Vehicle from Coverage Under the “For Hire” Exclusion
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER MAY HAVE REMOVED ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE REMOVAL EFFORTS EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MERCHANDISE RACK IN THE AISLE OF DEFENDANT STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED PLAINTIFF WIFE $25,000 AS AN INTEREST IN HER HUSBAND’S MBA DEGREE; MARITAL ASSETS WERE USED TO PROCURE THE DEGREE AND THE COST OF THE DEGREE IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR SUCH AN AWARD (SECOND DEPT).
SEALED LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS PROPERLY UNSEALED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A TRAIN; THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE ALLOWS A TRAIN OPERATOR TO PROCEED NORMALLY AND ASSUME A PERSON SEEN AHEAD ON THE TRACKS WILL GET OUT OF THE WAY; THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE APPLIES WHETHER THE ACCIDENT HAPPENS IN DAYLIGHT OR, AS HERE, AT NIGHT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CHIDREN WERE HEALTHY AND WELL CARED FOR, NEGLECT PETITION BASED UPON MOTHER’S... THERE WAS NO GOOD REASON TO DENY PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A WITNESS, DETERMINATION...