Pipp v. Guthrie Clinic, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 20 January 2011 |
| Parties | Carl PIPP et al., Respondents, v. GUTHRIE CLINIC, LTD., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
80 A.D.3d 1014
Carl PIPP et al., Respondents,
v.
GUTHRIE CLINIC, LTD., et al., Appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jan. 20, 2011.
The Perry Law Firm, L.L.C., Scranton, Pennsylvania (Mark T. Perry of counsel), for appellants.
Law Office of Jacob P. Welch, Corning (Jacob P. Welch of counsel), for respondents.
Before: CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, MALONE JR., STEIN and GARRY, JJ.
MERCURE, J.
Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (O'Shea, J.), entered December 14, 2009 in Chemung County, which denied defendants' motion to set aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and (2) from a judgment of said court, entered January 20, 2010 in Chemung County, upon said verdict.
Plaintiff Carl Pipp (hereinafter plaintiff) fell and injured his left knee in September 2003, while delivering oxygen cylinders to a medical supply facility that was leased and operated by defendants
A trial was held, at the close of which the jury determined that defendants were negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. The jury also found that plaintiff was negligent, but determined that his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing his fall and injuries. The jury awarded plaintiff $545,982.68 in damages and, after denying defendants' motion to set aside the verdict or grant a new trial, the court entered judgment. Defendants appeal from the judgment and the order denying their motion to set aside the verdict.
We affirm. Initially, we reject defendants' argument that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiffs failed to prove the cause of plaintiff's fall. "[F]ailure to prove what actually caused a plaintiff to fall in a situation where there could be other causes is fatal to a plaintiff's cause of action" ( Dapp v. Larson, 240 A.D.2d 918, 919, 659 N.Y.S.2d 130 [1997]; see Denny v. New York State Indus. for Disabled, 291 A.D.2d 615, 615, 737 N.Y.S.2d 674 [2002] ). Plaintiffs were not, however, "required to rule out all plausible variables and factors that could have caused or contributed to the accident" ( Gayle v. City of New York, 92 N.Y.2d 936, 937, 703 N.E.2d 758 [1998] ). Rather, to establish proximate cause, they were required to prove only ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. 158th St. & Riverside Drive Hous. Co.
...jury ( see Bradley v. Earl B. Feiden, Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 265, 272 n. 2, 832 N.Y.S.2d 470, 864 N.E.2d 600 [2007];Pipp v. Guthrie Clinic, Ltd., 80 A.D.3d 1014, 1016, 915 N.Y.S.2d 376 [2011] ). Nor do we find any basis to disturb the jury's discretion in imposing penalties ( see State of New York ......
-
Tyrell v. Pollak, 525957
...potential cause, such that a verdict in plaintiff's favor was not insufficient as a matter of law (see Pipp v. Guthrie Clinic, Ltd., 80 A.D.3d 1014, 1015–1016, 915 N.Y.S.2d 376 [2011] ; see generally Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145 [1978] ; com......
-
People v. Nichols
...12 N.Y.3d 707, 879 N.Y.S.2d 54, 906 N.E.2d 1088 [2009]; People v. Longtin, 54 A.D.3d 1110, 1111, 864 N.Y.S.2d 203 [2008], lv. denied915 N.Y.S.2d 37611 N.Y.3d 714, 873 N.Y.S.2d 269, 901 N.E.2d 763 [2008] ).80 A.D.3d 1014 His further assertion that a downward departure to risk level II was wa......
-
Acton v. 1906 Rest. Corp.
...the staircase caused her fall (see Griffin v. Sadauskas, 14 A.D.3d at 931, 787 N.Y.S.2d 721 ; see generally Pipp v. Guthrie Clinic, Ltd., 80 A.D.3d 1014, 1016, 915 N.Y.S.2d 376 [2011] ). Accordingly, defendants were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.ORDERED that the ......