John v. Supermarket General Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

John v. Supermarket General Corp.

116 A.D.2d 625, 497 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51490

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 21, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 625 (John v. Supermarket General Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John v. Supermarket General Corp., 116 A.D.2d 625, 497 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff Flora John appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), entered April 9, 1985, which was in her favor, upon a jury verdict, in the principal amount of $20,000.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff Flora John incurred a herniated lumbar disc as a result of a slip and fall in defendant’s supermarket. In subsequent years she suffered additional pain and expenses when the injury was allegedly aggravated by her attempts to take such actions as lifting patients while working as a nurse. From the jury’s award to Ms. John of $6,000 in lost earnings it can reasonably be inferred that they found defendant liable for the pain and expenses of the initial injury, but did not extend liability to the subsequent "aggravations”, nor to a subsequent slip and fall at her place of employment. This determination must be upheld since it is not incorrect as a matter of law.

Because the jury limited damages to those arising directly from the original accident, their award of $14,000 for pain and suffering and $6,000 for lost earnings was reasonable (see, Colao v Brightwater Towers, 88 AD2d 580). Although remarks [626]*626made by opposing counsel during summation, suggesting that Flora John and her prior attorney had constructed a false case, might have been prejudicial (see, e.g., Taormina v Goodman, 63 AD2d 1018; Bishin v New York Cent. R. R. Co., 20 AD2d 921), to the extent objected to, said remarks were followed by a curative instruction and the misconduct "did not prevent the careful consideration of the evidence by the jury and did not influence its verdict” (Reilly v Wright, 55 AD2d 544, 545). Such a conclusion is particularly warranted since the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Flora John. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff Flora John appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), entered April 9, 1985, which was in her favor, upon a jury verdict, in the principal amount of $20,000.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff Flora John incurred a herniated lumbar disc as a result of a slip and fall in defendant’s supermarket. In subsequent years she suffered additional pain and expenses when the injury was allegedly aggravated by her attempts to take such actions as lifting patients while working as a nurse. From the jury’s award to Ms. John of $6,000 in lost earnings it can reasonably be inferred that they found defendant liable for the pain and expenses of the initial injury, but did not extend liability to the subsequent "aggravations”, nor to a subsequent slip and fall at her place of employment. This determination must be upheld since it is not incorrect as a matter of law.

Because the jury limited damages to those arising directly from the original accident, their award of $14,000 for pain and suffering and $6,000 for lost earnings was reasonable (see, Colao v Brightwater Towers, 88 AD2d 580). Although remarks [626]*626made by opposing counsel during summation, suggesting that Flora John and her prior attorney had constructed a false case, might have been prejudicial (see, e.g., Taormina v Goodman, 63 AD2d 1018; Bishin v New York Cent. R. R. Co., 20 AD2d 921), to the extent objected to, said remarks were followed by a curative instruction and the misconduct "did not prevent the careful consideration of the evidence by the jury and did not influence its verdict” (Reilly v Wright, 55 AD2d 544, 545). Such a conclusion is particularly warranted since the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Flora John. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 625, 497 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-v-supermarket-general-corp-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack