Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 July 1995 |
| Citation | 86 N.Y.2d 744,631 N.Y.S.2d 122 |
| Parties | , 655 N.E.2d 163 Stephen LOLIK et al., Appellants, v. BIG V SUPERMARKETS, INC., doing business as Shop-Rite, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
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 suffering, 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 verdict 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 the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented' " (210 A.D.2d 703, 705, 620 N.Y.S.2d 167), citing Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145. The test, the Court said, is not whether the jury erred in weighing the evidence, but whether any viable evidence 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 (210 A.D.2d, at 706, 620 N.Y.S.2d 167).
However, there was abundant medical evidence from which the jury could conclude that the fall caused plaintiff's existing asymptomatic arthritic condition to become symptomatic after the fall and thus, as the dissenter observed, the trial court could set aside the dismissal and order a new trial if it concluded the jury's verdict was against the weight of evidence. The standard for making that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. Rochester City Sch. Dist.
...that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” ( Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Higgins v. Armored Motor Serv. of Am., Inc., 13 A.D.3d 1087, 1088, 788 N.Y.S......
-
Bertram v. N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp.
...are drawn against plaintiffs, reasonable, fair minded jurors could not have reached a verdict against plaintiffs. Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746 (1995); Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499 (1978); Yamamoto v. Carled Cab Corp., 66 A.D.3d 603, 604 (1st Dep't 2009); Wo......
-
Dummitt v. Chesterton (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig.)
...that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence.” Lolik v. Big v. Supermarkets, Inc., 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163 (1995) (quoting Moffatt v. Moffatt, 86 A.D.2d 864, 447 N.Y.S.2d 313 [2nd Dept 1982], aff'd 62 N.Y.2d 875 [1984] ......
-
Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v. Progressive Ins. Co.
...unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163 [1995]; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184 [1985] ). Whether a jury verdict should be set asi......