In Kutza v. Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., the plaintiff’s decedent, Thomas Pyle, sustained an injury to his left hand when he tripped and fell over construction debris at a building site where he was employed as a tile finisher. The jury found that defendant violated Labor Law §241(6) but attributed 50% of the fault for the injuries to negligence on plaintiff’s part. The jury awarded $100,000 for pain and suffering but no damages to the plaintiff wife for loss of consortium.
The trial judge denied the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict, but the First Department unanimously reversed and remanded the matter for a new trial – unless the parties stipulated to attribute 0% of the fault for plaintiff’s decedent’s injuries to his own negligence, and to increase the verdict to $400,000 for pain and suffering and $50,000 for loss of consortium.
This reversal hinged on what the appellate court found to be an erroneous charge on comparative fault. Based upon the evidence adduced at trial, the court did not find that rationale jurors could find the plaintiff comparatively negligent. The jury’s verdict established that defendants were responsible for keeping the areas clear. Although defendants argued that the extensive debris and garbage on the floor could have easily been avoided, Pyle was not obligated to clear the floor of garbage, and evidence showed that there was no clear path for him to otherwise use. Thus, the court held that a comparative negligence charge was not warranted.
The evidence established that, as a result of his hand injury, Pyle developed nerve damage, painful symptoms consistent with reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), anxiety, and significant limitation of the use of his left hand due to permanent contracture of the fingers. The court found that the award of $100,000 for pain and suffering materially deviated from reasonable compensation.
Additionally, the court found that the jury’s decision not to award damages to plaintiff for loss of consortium was against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff described significant changes in Pyle’s behavior after the accident and explained the impact this had on their relationship. Thus, the court found the jury’s decision to award damages for pain and suffering but none for loss of consortium was inconsistent.
Most likely the plaintiff’s demise (from other causes) had some impact on the jury decision. However, the appellate court just did not perceive the evidence as did the trial judge.
Thanks to Vincent Terrasi for his contribution.