Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Alice GRIFFIN, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered August 17, 2006 and September 27, 2006, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant's motion to set aside the verdict awarding plaintiff $50,000 in past pain and suffering, $250,000 for future pain and suffering and $1,000 for medical expenses, to the extent of directing a new trial on the issue of damages for future pain and suffering only unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce the award for future pain and suffering from $250,000 to $150,000, unanimously modified, on the facts, to reduce the remittitur, to which plaintiff must stipulate within 30 days of service of a copy of this order, to $25,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff was injured when, after ordering a cup of coffee, defendant's employee slid the cup across the counter toward plaintiff causing it to fall over and spill on her left foot. The coffee was between 195 and 205 degrees and caused a second-degree burn, which resulted in permanent nerve damage, leading plaintiff to sometimes experience numbness and a burning sensation in her left foot.
The trial court properly concluded that the jury's finding that plaintiff's injuries were caused by the negligence of defendant's employee was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see McDermott v. Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 A.D.3d 195, 206, 777 N.Y.S.2d 103 [2004] ). The court properly recognized that there was no basis upon which to disturb the jury's credibility determinations (id.), and we reject defendant's argument that plaintiff's actions following the accident were not consistent with that of someone who had hot coffee spilled on her.
Although the award of $50,000 for past pain and suffering was appropriate, the future pain and suffering award deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation to the extent indicated (see Beck v. Woodward Affiliates, 226 A.D.2d 328, 331, 640 N.Y.S.2d 205 [1996] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 05, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)