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.
Brigitte RODRIGUEZ, etc., et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), entered July 6, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict finding it 56% at fault in the happening of the accident and the injured plaintiff 44% at fault, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the interlocutory judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages arising from injuries sustained by the plaintiff Brigitte Rodriguez while riding the subway. After a trial on the issue of liability, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs on both a design defect and a negligence theory. We reverse and dismiss the complaint.
The plaintiffs' claim of a design defect was not referred to, either directly or indirectly, in the plaintiffs' original or amended notices of claim and substantially altered the nature of their claims (see, Chipurnoi v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 216 A.D.2d 171, 628 N.Y.S.2d 666; Mazzilli v. City of New York, 154 A.D.2d 355, 545 N.Y.S.2d 833). Thus, the plaintiffs should not have been permitted to present evidence of such a theory to the jury. In any event, the limited testimony as to a design defect presented at trial was not sufficient to sustain the jury's finding of liability on that claim (see, Adamy v. Ziriakus, 92 N.Y.2d 396, 681 N.Y.S.2d 463, 704 N.E.2d 216; Amatulli v. Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 N.Y.2d 525, 569 N.Y.S.2d 337, 571 N.E.2d 645; Pinzon v. City of New York, 197 A.D.2d 680, 602 N.Y.S.2d 909).
Further, based on the evidence presented at trial, there was simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could have possibly led rational persons to conclude that the defendant was negligent in the happening of the accident and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the damages alleged (see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145; Kozinevich v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 201 A.D.2d 462, 607 N.Y.S.2d 421).
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: September 10, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)