Miller v. Long Island R.R.
| Decision Date | 06 February 1995 |
| Citation | 622 N.Y.S.2d 305,212 A.D.2d 515 |
| Parties | Derek Marc MILLER, etc., et al., Appellants, v. LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD, Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendant; Gary Nobile, et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Paul F. McAloon, P.C., New York City, for appellants.
Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, Lake Success (Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr., of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent.
Mulholland, Minion & Roe, Williston Park (Brian R. Davey, of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent Gary Nobile.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and COPERTINO, PIZZUTO and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered November 14, 1991, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant Long Island Rail Road and the third-party defendants Joseph Miller and Gary Nobile, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered January 29, 1992, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant Long Island Rail Road, dismissing the complaint on the merits.
ORDERED that the judgment entered January 29, 1992, is reversed, on the law, the judgment entered November 14, 1991, is vacated, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.
On May 4, 1981, the plaintiff Derek Marc Miller, who was nine years old at the time, severely injured his right leg when he fell underneath a moving train owned by the defendant Long Island Rail Road (hereinafter the railroad). The evidence adduced at trial establishes that either Derek's father, Joseph Miller, or his cousin, Gary Nobile, both third-party defendants, was attempting to lift Derek onto the moving train as it was departing from the Deer Park station.
Contrary to the railroad's contention, customary safety procedures which bear upon the reasonableness of a party's conduct are admissible to prove negligence (see, Trimarco v. Klein, 56 N.Y.2d 98, 105-107, 451 N.Y.S.2d 52, 436 N.E.2d 502; see also, Egelston v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R.R. Co., 205 N.Y. 579, 98 N.E. 748...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Expert witnesses
...a stunt to coach, where expert opined that performance of the stunt without a spotter was improper. Miller v. Long Is. R.R. , 212 A.D.2d 515, 622 N.Y.S.2d 305 (2d Dept. 1995). In a personal injury action arising from an accident that occurred when a child was trying to board a train, an exp......
-
Expert witnesses
...a stunt to coach, where expert opined that performance of the stunt without a spotter was improper. Miller v. Long Island R.R. , 212 A.D.2d 515, 622 N.Y.S.2d 305 (2d Dept. 1995). In a personal injury action arising from an accident that occurred when a child was trying to board a train, an ......
-
Expert witnesses
...a stunt to coach, where expert opined that performance of the stunt without a spotter was improper. Miller v. Long Island R.R. , 212 A.D.2d 515, 622 N.Y.S.2d 305 (2d Dept. 1995). In a personal injury action arising from an accident that occurred when a child was trying to board a train, an ......
-
Expert witnesses
...a stunt to coach, where expert opined that performance of the stunt without a spotter was improper. Miller v. Long Island R.R. , 212 A.D.2d 515, 622 N.Y.S.2d 305 (2d Dept. 1995). In a personal injury action arising from an accident that occurred when a child was trying to board a train, an ......