Soto v. New York City Transit Authority

• Decision Date: 23 March 2006
• Citation: Soto v. New York City Transit Authority, 846 N.E.2d 1211, 6 N.Y.3d 487, 813 N.Y.S.2d 701 (N.Y. 2006)
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Juan Alejandro SOTO, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

846 N.E.2d 1211

6 N.Y.3d 487

Juan Alejandro SOTO, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 23, 2006.

Lawrence Heisler, Brooklyn, and Wallace D. Gossett for appellant.

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York City (Brian J. Isaac and Julie T. Mark of counsel), and Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C., Fulton (Alan M. Shapey of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

CIPARICK, J.

The question presented by this appeal is whether plaintiff's reckless behavior was of such a nature as to constitute the sole legal cause of his injuries, vitiating the duty of care of a train operator. We conclude under the circumstances of this case that it was not, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. We further conclude that plaintiff's estimate of his own running speed at the time of the accident was admissible and sufficient to lay a proper foundation for plaintiff's accident reconstruction expert to use in forming his opinion.

Plaintiff — then 18 years old — and three of his friends spent the evening of January 24, 1997 in Manhattan and, over the course of about five hours, each consumed a quantity of alcohol. In the early hours of January 25, plaintiff and his friends attempted to return home to Queens. They waited some time for the number 7 train at Queensboro Plaza — an elevated subway station — where red tape indicating track work extended across the platform. The group eventually decided that the train was not running and walked along the "catwalk" — a three-foot wide path abutting the track — to the next station (33rd Street). They made it safely to 33rd Street and, after again waiting for a while, decided to walk along the catwalk to the next station (40th Street). As they proceeded along the northbound route, the tracks were to the left of the catwalk and to the right was a short railing.

Before they reached the 40th Street station, the group became aware of a train approaching from behind and began running along the catwalk in an attempt to reach the station before the train. Their intent was to board the train to continue their trip home. The four teens ran in single file, with plaintiff third in line. The train struck plaintiff in the vicinity of a signal box located on the catwalk, resulting in bilateral below-the-knee amputation.¹ Plaintiff was the only one of the four hit by the train.

At trial, plaintiff was permitted to testify to an estimate of his running speed at the time of the accident.² Plaintiff established that he was familiar with his running speed because he had been a member of a gym for about two years prior to the accident and would frequently run on a treadmill calibrated in terms of miles per hour. He would usually run at seven or eight miles per hour and, based on that experience, estimated that he was running about seven or eight miles per hour at the time of the accident.

Plaintiff's expert then used that estimate in making his calculations. Computing the train's stopping distance assuming the train operator perceived the boys on the catwalk from 151.5 feet away — the distance allegedly illuminated by the train's headlights — and factoring in reaction time, the expert determined that the train could have stopped 51 feet before it reached plaintiff if he had been running eight miles per hour and 37 feet before it reached plaintiff if he had been running seven miles per hour.

The train operator offered several inconsistent versions of his conduct at the time of the accident. The police report taken at the scene indicates that the train operator stated he did not see the boys "until he was passing them because they were hidden from his view by a signal device" and that the train stopped as a result of its own emergency devices before he was able to apply the brake. However, later that night, the train operator also filled out a report for NYCTA, this time stating that he saw an object behind the signal device and then placed the train into emergency mode. At trial he gave a third account, testifying that his first reports were inaccurate in that he saw a person on the catwalk in front of the signal box from about a train car's length away. He also testified that he placed the train into emergency stopping mode when he saw the person. The road car inspector for NYCTA who examined the train at the scene, however, only found blood on the train's "trip cock." The trip cock hangs in front of the train's wheels as an emergency device that automatically stops the train if it comes into contact with an obstruction.

At the close of plaintiff's case, NYCTA moved to dismiss the complaint for plaintiff's failure to establish a prima facie case of negligence. NYCTA also moved for a directed verdict on the issue of liability at the close of proof. The trial judge reserved decision on both motions. The jury returned a verdict finding NYCTA negligent, determining that its negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident and assigning it 25% of the fault.³ The jury allocated the remaining 75% of liability to plaintiff. NYCTA moved to set aside the verdict and Supreme Court denied all motions.

A majority of the Appellate Division affirmed, finding legally sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict as against NYCTA. Two Justices dissented in part and voted to reverse. They would have dismissed the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case because they believed "plaintiff's own reckless conduct constituted an intervening and unforeseeable act which broke any causal connection between his injury and any alleged negligence" by NYCTA (19 A.D.3d at 581-582, 800 N.Y.S.2d 419). The dissent also stated that plaintiff should not have been permitted to testify as to an estimate of his running speed, nor should the accident reconstruction expert have been allowed to use plaintiff's testimony as a basis for his opinion, since no foundation was properly laid and thus the testimony was "pure speculation and conjecture" (19 A.D.3d at 582, 800 N.Y.S.2d 419). NYCTA appeals as of right, and we affirm.

A jury verdict rests on legally insufficient evidence where there is "simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [individuals] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial" (Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145 [1978]). We have held that this inquiry is similar to that of a trial judge determining whether to direct a verdict (see Cohen, 45 N.Y.2d at 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145). If there is a question of fact and "it would not be utterly irrational for a jury to reach the result it has determined upon ... the court may not conclude that the verdict is as a matter of law not supported by the evidence" (Cohen, 45 N.Y.2d at 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145; Campbell v. City of Elmira, 84 N.Y.2d 505, 510, 620 N.Y.S.2d 302, 644 N.E.2d 993 [1994]).

NYCTA argues that plaintiff's own reckless conduct — entering the catwalk after consuming several alcoholic beverages and attempting to catch the train — was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Significantly, NYCTA did not request any instruction that the jury consider whether plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Neither did defendant request a jury charge on superseding or intervening cause. Rather, the jury was instructed that plaintiff's "negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident," and was asked to determine further whether NYCTA was also negligent, whether that negligence was a contributing factor to plaintiff's accident and the percentage of fault attributable to each party.

Plaintiff's conduct was undeniably reckless, but the jury appropriately considered plaintiff's actions and determined that he bore a far greater share of the fault. This is in keeping with the doctrine of comparative negligence (see CPLR 1411). Contrary to NYCTA's argument and the dissent, plaintiff's conduct, although a substantial factor in causing the accident, was not so egregious or unforeseeable that it must be deemed a superseding cause of the accident absolving defendant of liability.

This case does not involve the type of dangerous, illegal conduct presented in Barker v. Kallash, 63 N.Y.2d 19, 479 N.Y.S.2d 201, 468 N.E.2d 39 [1984] where the plaintiff was severely injured while constructing a pipe bomb. There, the Court denied plaintiff recovery for injuries sustained as a direct result of a serious violation of law, "not because the plaintiff contributed to his injury, but because the public policy of this State generally denies judicial relief to those injured in the course of committing a serious criminal act" (Barker, 63 N.Y.2d at 24, 479 N.Y.S.2d 201, 468 N.E.2d 39). Here, plaintiff surely and very substantially contributed to his injury, but did not engage in the type of dangerous criminal conduct that prohibited recovery in Barker. Nor can it be said that his conduct was such as to vitiate the duty of reasonable care owed to him by the train operator to see what there was to be seen through the proper use of his senses and to bring the train to a safe stop.

We have held that a train operator may be found negligent if he or she sees a person on the tracks "from such a distance and under such other circumstances as to permit him [or her], in the exercise of reasonable care, to stop before striking the person" (Coleman v. New York City Tr. Auth., 37 N.Y.2d 137, 140, 371 N.Y.S.2d 663, 332 N.E.2d 850 [1975]; see Noseworthy v. City of New York, 298 N.Y. 76, 79, 80 N.E.2d 744 [1948]). The train operator's duty certainly is not vitiated because plaintiff was voluntarily walking or running along the tracks or because of any reckless conduct on plaintiff's part.

Thus, it was not irrational for the jury to find NYCTA negligent. There is a reasonable view...