Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
Decision Date | 18 April 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 64-Civ. 33.,64-Civ. 33. |
Citation | 254 F. Supp. 430 |
Parties | Sidney ROGINSKY, Plaintiff, v. RICHARDSON-MERRELL, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Speiser, Shumate, Geoghan & Krause, New York City, William F. Geoghan, Jr., New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.
Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland & Kiendl, New York City, Judge Lawrence E. Walsh, New York City, of counsel, Costello, Ward, Tirabasso & Shea, New York City, Joseph M. Costello, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.
The present action is one of over seventy cases assigned to the undersigned involving injuries alleged to have resulted from ingestion of the prescription drug MER/29, which was developed, tested and marketed by the Wm. S. Merrell Company, a division and formerly a subsidiary of the defendant. After a four week trial in the instant case, the first to be tried in this court, the jury responded as follows to the following interrogatories:
Before the court for disposition herein are the post-trial motions of the defendant. Since the conclusion of the trial, the court has had the opportunity for a reexamination1 of a transcript of the proceedings. So also, the various arguments raised in the post-trial briefs have been perused. Upon consideration the requests that a verdict be directed for the defendant as to all claims, or a new trial granted, are denied. In the alternative, defendant seeks to establish that the verdict for punitive damages was excessive, apparently urging the requirement of a necessary relationship between that and the compensatory damage award, and requesting that:
"If our motions shall be denied, we should like leave to prepare and submit a compilation based on prior determinations showing accepted relationships between compensatory and punitive damages to serve as a guide for the Court."
The charge of the court directly pertinent to the amount of punitive damages was as follows:2
(Minutes — p. 3045.)
In Reynolds v. Pegler, 123 F.Supp. 36 (S.D.N.Y.1954), aff'd 223 F.2d 429 (2d Cir. 1955) cert. denied, 350 U.S. 846, 76 S.Ct. 80, 100 L.Ed. 754 (1955), Judge Weinfeld denied a post trial motion to set aside a verdict for punitive damages as excessive and spoke as follows upon the standard of review:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
...and fixed compensatory damages at $17,500 and punitive damages at $100,000, which the judge later declined to eliminate or reduce, 254 F.Supp. 430 (1966). On appeal defendant contends that its motions for directed verdicts should have been granted; it argues also that evidence erroneously a......