The New York Court of Appeals' decision in Soto v. New York City Trans. Auth. involves a terrible accident where four youths were running on a catwalk next to a subway platform and one of the youths was hit by the train. The New York City Transit Authority was appealing the denial of its motion to set aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, where the jury assessed 25% of liability against the Authority and the rest against the plaintiff. The Court rejected the Authority's argument that the plaintiff's own reckless conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident, noting that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict given the jury instructions (the Court noted that the Authority failed to ask for a sole proximate cause jury instruction or a superceding or intervening cause instruction). The case provides a good reiteration of the Court's standard of review on whether a jury verdict rest on legally sufficient evidence.
The Court addressed a separate, evidentiary issue determining whether the trial court erred by allowing the plaintiff to testify as to his running speed just before the accident. It concluded that the trial court did not err, observing that the plaintiff established a sufficient foundation demonstrating the basis of his knowledge of how fast he was running -- i.e., two years experience running on a treadmill calibrated to measure miles per hour.
Comments