Lester v. Jolicofur
| Decision Date | 12 May 1986 |
| Citation | 120 A.D.2d 574,502 N.Y.S.2d 61 |
| Parties | Sandra LESTER, Respondent, v. Claude JOLICOFUR, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Carlino, Lefkowitz, Bornes & Bolstad, P.C., Mineola (Joseph F. Carlino and Marjorie E. Bornes, of counsel), for appellants.
Schneider, Kleinick & Weitz, P.C., New York City (Brian J. Shoot and Sheridan Albert, of counsel), for respondent.
Before LAZER, J.P., and BRACKEN, BROWN and LAWRENCE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lodato, J.), dated October 25, 1984, which, after a jury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $554,000.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
This action arises out of a two-car collision on Kings Highway in Brooklyn, involving a southbound automobile driven by the plaintiff Sandra Lester and a left-turning northbound automobile owned by the defendant Fordham Rent-A-Car, Inc., and driven by the defendant Claude Jolicofur. The jury's verdict assessing 100% of the liability against the defendant Claude Jolicofur is supported by the record.
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 provides that a left-turning vehicle must yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction. Since the defendant Jolicofur stated that he saw no vehicle approaching, he was clearly negligent since a motorist is under a "duty to see that which under the facts and circumstances he should have seen by the proper use of his senses" (1 PJI 2:77, p. 225; see, Kiernan v. Edwards, 97 A.D.2d 750, 468 N.Y.S.2d 381, citing Weigand v. United Traction Co., 221 N.Y. 39, 116 N.E. 345). If Jolicofur did in fact see the plaintiff's vehicle approaching it was reasonable to conclude that he was negligent in trying to cross in front of the plaintiff's car.
We see no reason to disturb the damage award. The plaintiff's economist based his calculations of loss of earnings on United States Census Bureau statistics, and in so doing, figured projected earnings for a person with one to three years of college even though the plaintiff was only 16 credits shy of a degree and was continuing her schooling. The economist ascertained the present value of the plaintiff's projected future earnings by discounting the future earnings figure. The jury awarded only about one-half of what the economist estimated to be the plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arrospide v. Murphy
... ... 2010]; ... Domanova v. State of New York, 41 A.D.3d 633, 838 ... N.Y.S.2d 644 [2d Dept. 2007]; Lester v Jolicofur et ... al, 120 A.D.2d 574; 502 N.Y.S.2d 61 [2d Dept 1986]). The ... occurrence of a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping ... ...
-
Arrospide v. Murphy
...900 N.Y.S.2d 315 [2dDept.2010]; Domanova v. State of New York, 41 A.D.3d 633, 838 N.Y.S.2d 644 [2d Dept. 2007]; Lester v Jolicofur et al, 120 A.D.2d 574; 502 N.Y.S.2d 61 [2d Dept 1986]). The occurrence of a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicles creates a prima facie case of......
-
Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. The Town of Islip
...900 N.Y.S.2d 315 [2d Dept 2010]; Domanova v State of New York, 41 A.D.3d 633, 838 N.Y.S.2d 644 [2d Dept 2007]; Lester v Jolicofur et al., 120 A.D.2d 574; 502 N.Y.S.2d 61 [2d Dept 1986]). 3 The occurrence of a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicles creates a prima facie case ......
-
Massa v. Simpson
...N.Y.S.2d 315 [2d Dept.2010]; Domanova v. State of New York, 41 A.D.3d 633, 838 N.Y.S.2d 644 [2d Dept. 2007]; Lester v Jolicofur et al., 120 A.D.2d 574; 502 N.Y.S.2d 61 [2d Dept 1986]). The occurrence of a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicles creates a prima facie case of n......