Stanford v. Resler
| Decision Date | 18 July 1994 |
| Citation | 206 A.D.2d 468,615 N.Y.S.2d 46 |
| Parties | Michael STANFORD, Appellant, v. Paul RESLER, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kornfeld, Rew, Newman & Ellsworth, Suffern (Robert J. Ellsworth, of counsel), for appellant.
Carter, Conboy, Bardwell, Case, Blackmore & Napierski, Albany (James A. Resila, of counsel), for respondents.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, JOY and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Hillery, J.), entered April 2, 1992, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
This case arose from an automobile accident occurring on New York State Highway Route 208 in Orange County. On August 27, 1984, while driving southbound on Route 208, the plaintiff was unable to negotiate a sharp left-hand curve. His vehicle struck a guardrail on the right-hand side of the roadway, crossed over both the southbound and northbound lanes, and struck a tree beyond the shoulder of the northbound lane. Almost instantaneously thereafter, the plaintiff's vehicle was involved in a second collision when it was struck from behind by a van driven by the defendant Paul Resler and owned by the defendant Chrysler Corporation. In a related claim by the plaintiff against the State of New York, the Court of Claims found, and this court agreed, that the plaintiff's failure to operate his vehicle with due care was the proximate cause of the initial collision (see, Stanford v. State of New York, 167 A.D.2d 381, 561 N.Y.S.2d 796).
Thus, insofar as it had previously been determined, as a matter of law, that the first collision was due solely to the plaintiff's own negligence, the Supreme Court properly charged the jury that the lesser standard of proof afforded by Noseworthy v. City of New York, 298 N.Y. 76, 80 N.E.2d 744, to actions brought by certain plaintiffs could only be applied if it found that the plaintiff's loss of memory occurred as a result of the second collision (see, Sawyer v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 328, 502 N.Y.S.2d 696, 493 N.E.2d 920).
In addition, we find that the trial court properly denied the plaintiff's application for a joint trial on the issues of liability and damages. As a general rule, questions of liability and damages in a negligence action represent distinct and severable issues which should be tried and determined separately (see, CPLR 603; Martinez v. Town of Babylon, 191 A.D.2d 483, 594 N.Y.S.2d 357; Armstrong v. Adelman Automotive Parts Distrib. Corp., 176 A.D.2d 773, 575 N.Y.S.2d 101; Parmar v. Skinner, 154 A.D.2d 444, 445, 546 N.Y.S.2d 16). It is only where the nature of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saint v. U.S.
...228, 269 N.E.2d 812, 321 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1971); Nahvi v. Urban, 259 A.D.2d 740, 687 N.Y.S.2d 398 (2d Dep't 1999); Stanford v. Resler, 206 A.D.2d 468, 615 N.Y.S.2d 46 (2d Dep't 1994). The burden of proof remains on the amnesiac plaintiff to present prima facie evidence of the defendant's neglig......
-
Mason v. Moore
... ... where the questions of liability and damages are discrete and such procedure will result in a shorter, simpler, less expensive trial (see, Stanford v. Resler, 206 A.D.2d 468, 615 N.Y.S.2d 46; Fetterman v. Evans, 204 A.D.2d 888, 889, 612 N.Y.S.2d 479). Conversely, bifurcation is not appropriate ... ...
-
Cook v. Waldbaum, Inc.
... ... court's denial of his application for a single trial on the issues of liability and damages was a proper exercise of its discretion (see, Stanford v. Resler, 206 A.D.2d 468, 615 N.Y.S.2d 46) ... Further, the trial court did not err in failing to charge the jury that the ... ...
- Sprague v. Unterberger
-
Chapter 14 Motions in Limine in New York Products Liability Litigation
...Cnty. of Onondaga, 64 A.D.2d 252, 409 N.Y.S.2d 854 (4th Dep’t 1978), aff’d, 48 N.Y.2d 765, 423 N.Y.S.2d 920 (1979); Stanford v. Resler, 206 A.D.2d 468, 615 N.Y.S.2d 46 (2d Dep’t 1994); Fetterman v. Evans, 204 A.D.2d 888, 612 N.Y.S.2d 479 (3d Dep’t 1994). [2798] See, e.g., Vail v. KMart Corp......