Recently in Train Accidents Category

September 28, 2011

Second Department Increases Jury Award In Train Accident Case

| Share

At trial in Kings County Supreme Court, a jury found Defendant, New York City Transit Authority, 70% at fault when Plaintiff, Clyde Davison, was struck by a train. Mr. Davison suffered a fractured clavicle and a fractured scapula as a result of the accident. The same jury awarded Mr. Davison $150,000 for past pain and suffering and $66,000 for future pain and suffering.

Plaintiff appealed arguing that the awards for pain and suffering were unreasonably low given the severity of the injuries. The Appellate Division, Second Department, agreed. The court increased damages on past pain and suffering from the principal sum of $150,000 to $275,000 and future pain and suffering from the principal sum of $66,000 to $175,000.

As a result, Mr. Davison will either have a new trial on damages or the Defendant will agree to pay at total of $315,000 ($192,500 ($275,000 x .70) for past pain and suffering and $122,500 ($175,000 x .70) for future pain and suffering).

Davison v New York City Tr. Auth., 2011 NY Slip Op 06244 (2d Dept. 2011).

Posted by Gallivan & Gallivan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Second Department Decisions , Sustainable Injury Verdicts In NY , Train Accidents

October 2, 2010

White Plains Personal Injury Attorney Report: First Department Overturns $3.5 Million Verdict In New York Subway Accident Case

| Share
The New York Appellate Division, First Department, recently overturned a $3.5 million verdict in a train accident case. The jury in the case returned a verdict in favor of an intoxicated 22-year-old whose foot was severed after falling on a subway track. The train operator testified that he saw what looked like garbage on the tracks from a distance away, but as the train proceeded, he realized it could have been a person. Once he realized it could be a person, he applied the emergency brake.

Plaintiff and defendant called experts who testified regarding subway train procedures, stopping distances, and reaction time. At the close of evidence, both sides move for directed verdict. Both applications were denied. The jury apportioned fault 65% to defendant and 35% to plaintiff. Defense counsel moved to set aside the verdict, which was denied.

On appeal, the First Department overturned the verdict as being based on insufficient evidence as a matter of law. Plaintiff's expert reportedly testified based on an "average reaction time" of one second. The Court reasoned, "...in determining that the defendant's train operator failed to exercise reasonable care because he could have stopped, the jury improperly equated negligence with possession of the motor skill that is essentially a reflex action."

Website Resource:

Dibble v New York City Tr. Auth., 2010 NY Slip Op 05494, (1st Dept. 2010).

Posted by Gallivan & Gallivan | | Email This Post

Posted In: Train Accidents

« The "Serious Injury" Threshold | Main Index | Archives | Trucking Accidents »