Naumann v. Richardson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Naumann v. Richardson

76 A.D.2d 917, 429 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12021

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

DecidedJune 30, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 76 A.D.2d 917 (Naumann v. Richardson) 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

Naumann v. Richardson, 76 A.D.2d 917, 429 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12021 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 16, 1979, which dismissed her complaint, after a jury trial limited to the issue of liability only. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted on the combined issues of liability and damages (see William v Adams, 46 AD2d 952), with costs to abide the event. On the facts before us, it would not have been possible for plaintiff to sustain her burden óf proof on the issue of liability alone without some showing of the injuries she suffered in the accident. At an examination before trial, defendant testified that her automobile was proceeding at a rate of only 10 miles per hour when it made a slight contact on its right side with the 85-year-old plaintiff pedestrian. At the jury trial, plaintiff was not permitted to show the nature and gravity of her injuries, despite the fact that the personal injuries she sustained and the severity of the impact were inextricably intertwined. "Evidence of injuries may be admitted at a trial on the issue of liability if [918]*918the cause of the injuries is inextricably intertwined with the extent of the injuries” (Keating v Eng, 50 AD2d 898). The trial court erred in precluding such testimony, even though the trial was being conducted on the liability issue alone. As stated in Bennetti v New York City Tr. Auth. (22 NY2d 742, 743, a case involving a collision between two vehicles): "It is manifest from the record that the speed of the vehicles was an essential element of plaintiffs’ case on the issue of due care. The exclusion of evidence of injuries to passengers on the bus was reversible error in that such evidence had a direct bearing on the force of the impact and the relative speed of the vehicles involved. The evidence should have been allowed, accompanied by an appropriate limiting instruction.” Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 16, 1979, which dismissed her complaint, after a jury trial limited to the issue of liability only. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted on the combined issues of liability and damages (see William v Adams, 46 AD2d 952), with costs to abide the event. On the facts before us, it would not have been possible for plaintiff to sustain her burden óf proof on the issue of liability alone without some showing of the injuries she suffered in the accident. At an examination before trial, defendant testified that her automobile was proceeding at a rate of only 10 miles per hour when it made a slight contact on its right side with the 85-year-old plaintiff pedestrian. At the jury trial, plaintiff was not permitted to show the nature and gravity of her injuries, despite the fact that the personal injuries she sustained and the severity of the impact were inextricably intertwined. "Evidence of injuries may be admitted at a trial on the issue of liability if [918]*918the cause of the injuries is inextricably intertwined with the extent of the injuries” (Keating v Eng, 50 AD2d 898). The trial court erred in precluding such testimony, even though the trial was being conducted on the liability issue alone. As stated in Bennetti v New York City Tr. Auth. (22 NY2d 742, 743, a case involving a collision between two vehicles): "It is manifest from the record that the speed of the vehicles was an essential element of plaintiffs’ case on the issue of due care. The exclusion of evidence of injuries to passengers on the bus was reversible error in that such evidence had a direct bearing on the force of the impact and the relative speed of the vehicles involved. The evidence should have been allowed, accompanied by an appropriate limiting instruction.” Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 917, 429 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naumann-v-richardson-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack