You are here: / Negligence
,

DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant (Dick) in this rear-end collision case demonstrated freedom from fault and was entitled to summary judgment. The evidence, including plaintiff’s testimony, demonstrated defendant’s vehicle was struck from behind while stopped behind plaintiff, and thereby pushed into contact with the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle. It was alleged that defendant’s vehicle was struck from behind by a Verizon truck which left the scene. That there was a question of fact whether any Verizon truck was involved in the accident had no effect on defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment:

“The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway” … . Hence, “[a] rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision” … . “Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it may provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation” … .

Here, Dick established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that his stopped vehicle was propelled forward into the plaintiff’s vehicle after his vehicle was struck in the rear by a third vehicle, and that he was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . In opposition, the Verizon defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Dick was at fault in the happening of the accident … . Contrary to the Verizon defendants’ contention, the issue of whether they owned the third vehicle which struck Dick’s vehicle is not relevant to the determination of this motion. Wooldridge-Solano v Dick, 2016 NY Slip Op 06488, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/EVIDENCE (REAR-END COLLISION, DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (REAR-END COLLISION, DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/COMPARATIVE FAULT (REAR-END COLLISION, DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/REAR-END COLLISION (DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

,

PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate the absence of comparative fault in this rear-end collision case required the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment without reference to defendant’s papers:

 

“To prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff must establish, prima facie, not only that the opposing party was negligent, but also that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault” … . A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence … . Here, the plaintiffs’ submissions in support of their motion, which included the defendant’s deposition transcript, failed to eliminate a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had a nonnegligent explanation for the collision. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs’ vehicle came to a stop, started again, and came to a second stop for no apparent reason. The defendant claimed that when he braked to avoid a collision, his vehicle skidded on a roadway which was wet from melting snow … . Moluh v Vord, 2016 NY Slip Op 06477, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/COMPARATIVE FAULT (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (REAR-END COLLISION PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

 

,

CHAIN BETWEEN TWO POLES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined the defendant school district did not demonstrate a chain stretched between two poles, over which plaintiff tripped and fell at a pep rally, was an open and obvious condition. Therefore the school’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

There is no duty to warn of a condition which is open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . “The issue of whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious is fact-specific, and usually a question for a jury” … . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted’ … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the chain was open and obvious given the crowd and lighting conditions at the time of the accident … . Since the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Simon v Comsewogue Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 06486, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CHAIN BETWEEN TWO POLES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (TRIP AND FALL, CHAIN BETWEEN TWO POLES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/SLIP AND FALL (CHAIN BETWEEN TWO POLES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)

WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS.

The Second Department determined the wheel stop was an open and obvious condition which can not be the basis for liability in a slip and fall case:

While a property owner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner for its patrons … , there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which is not inherently dangerous … . “A wheel stop or concrete parking lot divider which is clearly visible presents no unreasonable risk of harm” … .

Here, the defendant … established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and photographic evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff tripped when her foot came into contact with a wheel stop, which was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous, as she attempted to step over it on the way to her car … . Lacerra v CVS Pharmacy, 2016 NY Slip Op 06474, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)/SLIP AND FALL (WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)/WHEEL STOP (WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS.

The Second Department, although agreeing with Supreme Court that aspects the damages award in this medical malpractice case were excessive, determined Supreme Court did not have the power to simply reduce the damages amounts. Rather, Supreme Court should have granted the motion to set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial unless the parties stipulate to the reduced damages:

… [I]t was procedurally improper for the Supreme Court to enter a judgment reducing the awards for future medical care, future medications, future physical and occupational therapy from age 21, future speech therapy from age 21, future medical equipment, future medical supplies, future loss of earning capacity, past pain and suffering, and future pain and suffering without granting a new trial on those issues unless the plaintiffs stipulated to reduce the verdict … . Reilly v St. Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr., 2016 NY Slip Op 06485, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS)/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS)/DAMAGES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS)

,

STORM IN PROGRESS RULE RELIEVED DEFENDANTS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRACKED IN WATER; EVIDENCE OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE COUPLED WITH PLAINTIFF’S OBSERVATIONS SHORTLY BEFORE THE ACCIDENT DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF URINE ON FLOOR.

The First Department determined the storm in progress rule relieved defendants of responsibility for tracked in water during a snow storm. With respect to a second accident alleged in the complaint (slipping on urine on the building floor) the court held that evidence of the daily maintenance routine, coupled with plaintiff’s testimony she did not see urine on the floor on the afternoon of the accident (which occurred at 6:30 or 7 pm), demonstrated the defendants did not have constructive notice of the condition:

Here, plaintiff testified that ten or fifteen minutes before her first accident, she saw that it was snowing. Thus, any issue concerning whether defendants made reasonable efforts to remedy the wet condition on the steps of the entry vestibule was beside the point since they had no duty to correct the ongoing problem of pedestrians tracking water into the vestibule, until a reasonable time after the storm ended … .

With respect to plaintiff’s second accident in the building, the court properly concluded that defendants demonstrated prima facie the absence of actual or constructive knowledge of urine on the second floor platform based on the testimony of the superintendent that he inspected daily, mopped three times a week, and swept the stairs every day. Plaintiff also testified that she did not see the urine on the afternoon before her 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m. accident, and was unaware of any complaints of a recurring moisture condition on the platform… . Rosario v Prana Nine Props., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 06431, 1st Dept 10-4-16

NEGLIGENCE (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE RELIEVED DEFENDANTS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRACKED IN WATER; EVIDENCE OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE COUPLED WITH PLAINTIFF’S OBSERVATIONS SHORTLY BEFORE THE ACCIDENT DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF URINE ON FLOOR)/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS RULE RELIEVED DEFENDANTS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRACKED IN WATER; EVIDENCE OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE COUPLED WITH PLAINTIFF’S OBSERVATIONS SHORTLY BEFORE THE ACCIDENT DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF URINE ON FLOOR)/SLIP AND FALL (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE RELIEVED DEFENDANTS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRACKED IN WATER; EVIDENCE OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE COUPLED WITH PLAINTIFF’S OBSERVATIONS SHORTLY BEFORE THE ACCIDENT DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF URINE ON FLOOR)/STORM IN PROGRESS RULE (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE RELIEVED DEFENDANTS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRACKED IN WATER)/ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE (EVIDENCE OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE COUPLED WITH PLAINTIFF’S OBSERVATIONS SHORTLY BEFORE THE ACCIDENT DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF URINE ON FLOOR)

, , ,

EXPERT’S INABILITY TO QUANTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT DIMINISHED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S CHANCE OF A BETTER OUTCOME DID NOT JUSTIFY GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for a judgment as a matter of law (on the issue of causation) should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the delay in diagnosing or failure to diagnose plaintiff’s decedent’s condition diminished plaintiff’s decedent’s chance of a better outcome. Plaintiff’s expert’s inability to quantify the extent to which defendants’ conduct diminished the chance of a better outcome did not render the proof insufficient:

In order to establish proximate causation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s deviation from the standard of care “was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury” (PJI 2:70…). Where, as here, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant negligently failed or delayed in diagnosing and treating a condition, a finding that the negligence was a proximate cause of an injury to the patient may be predicated on the theory that the defendant thereby “diminished [the patient’s] chance of a better outcome,” in this case, survival … . In that instance, the plaintiff must present evidence from which a rational jury could infer that there was a “substantial possibility” that the patient was denied a chance of the better outcome as a result of the defendant’s deviation from the standard of care … . However, “[a] plaintiff’s evidence of proximate cause may be found legally sufficient even if his or her expert is unable to quantify the extent to which the defendant’s act or omission decreased the [patient’s] chance of a better outcome . . . , as long as evidence is presented from which the jury may infer that the defendant’s conduct diminished the [patient’s] chance of a better outcome’ … . Clune v Moore, 2016 NY Slip Op 06331, 4th Dept 9-30-16

 

, ,

PROPERTY OWNER’S [EMPLOYER’S] COMMON LAW DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE TO WORK NOT TRIGGERED BY INJURY WHEN DRAWING UP AN ESTIMATE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner was not entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff was on the property to provide an estimate of the cost of repair of defendant’s porch when the porch collapsed. Defendant argued she could not be liable because the injury occurred when plaintiff was doing work he was hired to do. However, the plaintiff had not been hired to repair the porch:

Employers have a common-law duty to provide their employees with a safe place to work … . The duty, however, does not extend to hazards that are part of, or inherent in, the very work the employee is to perform or defects the employee is hired to repair … . Here, the defendant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as the evidence submitted in support of her motion showed that the plaintiff merely went to the premises to prepare an estimate to repair the back porch. The plaintiff had not been hired to repair the back porch and he was not engaged in any repair work when the incident allegedly occurred… . Arcabascio v Bentivegna, 2016 NY Slip Op 06187, 2nd Dept 9-28-16

NEGLIGENCE (PROPERTY OWNER’S [EMPLOYER’S] COMMON LAW DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE TO WORK NOT TRIGGERED BY INJURY WHEN PROVIDING AN ESTIMATE)/LABOR-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PROPERTY OWNER’S [EMPLOYER’S] COMMON LAW DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE TO WORK NOT TRIGGERED BY INJURY WHEN PROVIDING AN ESTIMATE)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (PROPERTY OWNER’S [EMPLOYER’S] COMMON LAW DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE TO WORK NOT TRIGGERED BY INJURY WHEN PROVIDING AN ESTIMATE)

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SATISFY HIS BURDEN TO PROVE HIS INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY A PARTICULAR TRAIN AND THE OPERATOR OF THE TRAIN WAS NEGLIGENT; GRANT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AFFIRMED.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the NYC Transit Authority’s motion to set aside the verdict was properly granted. Plaintiff, who had no memory of the incident, claimed he was struck by defendant’s train due to the defendant train-operator’s (Lopez’s) negligence. The First Department found the evidence of both causation and negligence was speculative. With respect to the proof of the operator’s (Lopez’s) negligence, the court wrote:

… [A]ssuming arguendo that Lopez’s train caused plaintiff’s injury, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that Lopez could have avoided injuring plaintiff if he had activated the train’s emergency brake upon observing plaintiff’s sneakers … . * * *

The [Ct.] of Appeals has explained that a train operator “may be found negligent if he or she sees a person on the tracks from such a distance and under such other circumstances as to permit him [or her], in the exercise of reasonable care, to stop before striking the person'” (Soto v New York City Tr. Auth., 6 NY3d 487, 493 [2006] …). Contrary to the dissent’s arguments that our holding here “eviscerate[s]” Soto, this Court and our colleagues in the [2nd] Department have explained that Soto does not relieve a plaintiff of the burden to introduce competent evidence, nor does it allow a plaintiff to rely solely on conclusory assertions and mere speculation … . Obey v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06183. 1st Dept 9-27-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAIN ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SATISFY HIS BURDEN TO PROVE HIS INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY BEING STRUCK BY A PARTICULAR TRAIN AND THE OPERATOR OF THE TRAIN WAS NEGLIGENT; GRANT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AFFIRMED)/TRAINS (NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SATISFY HIS BURDEN TO PROVE HIS INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY BEING STRUCK BY A PARTICULAR TRAIN AND THE OPERATOR OF THE TRAIN WAS NEGLIGENT; GRANT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AFFIRMED)

,

CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCORDED ANY PROBATIVE FORCE.

The Second Department, in this wrongful death case, determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for damages for conscious pain and suffering should not have been granted. The physician’s (Yong-Myun Rho’s) letter did not demonstrate relevant expertise and was conclusory and speculative:

The letter did not set forth what skill, training, knowledge, or experience Yong-Myun Rho had in the relevant areas of medicine so as to ensure the reliability of the opinion regarding the decedent’s time of death and whether the decedent suffered conscious pain before her death.

Further, the opinion of Yong-Myun Rho was conclusory and speculative and, thus, should have been accorded no probative force … . Essentially, based on the “findings” that the decedent had no vital sign when brought to the hospital, that there were open skull fractures showing the contused and lacerated brain tissue, and that the hospital certified the decedent’s death as traumatic cardiac arrest, Yong-Myun Rho opined that the decedent died immediately after the collision due to severe brain injury, and that she did not suffer any conscious pain before her death. Yong-Myun Rho added that the brain was the “essential organ that feels the pain.” Yong-Myun Rho did not adequately explain how these findings led to the conclusion that the decedent died immediately after the collision and did not suffer conscious pain before her death. Mazella v Hauser, 2016 NY Slip Op 06066, 2nd Dept 9-21-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (WRONGFUL DEATH, CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCORDED ANY PROBATIVE FORCE)/EVIDENCE (WRONGFUL DEATH, CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCORDED ANY PROBATIVE FORCE)/EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE (WRONGFUL DEATH, CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCORDED ANY PROBATIVE FORCE)/WRONGFUL DEATH (CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCORDED ANY PROBATIVE FORCE)CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING (WRONGFUL DEATH, CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCORDED ANY PROBATIVE FORCE)

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