WAS THIS A CRUMMY RESULT?
In Crooms v. Sauer Bros. Inc, James Crooms filed a personal injury lawsuit after he fell in the backyard of Sauer Brother’s apartment building.
Crooms fractured his left foot’s metatarsal bone and developed a deep vein thrombosis from the cast. In addition, Crooms’ ankle and spine injuries required two surgeries. After a jury trial, the Bronx County Supreme Court awarded Crooms a lowly $75,000 for past pain and suffering and zilch for future pain and suffering.
During the trial, Crooms was questioned about an affirmation he had signed in connection with an auto accident that happened after his fall and repeatedly testified that the affirmation was “erroneous.”
Although Crooms sought to offer into evidence a police report and other documents which would bolster his testimony, the trial court rebuffed that effort since the issue was “collateral” and only spoke to credibility.
Crooms appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department, arguing that he should have been permitted to prove he hadn’t been in an auto accident after his fall so as to avoid any speculation by the jury. He further asserted that the jury’s verdict was “against the weight of the credible evidence” and materially deviated from “reasonable compensation.”
The AD1 concluded that the dispute over his affirmation was a “collateral matter,” as it had no relevance to “any issue in the case, other than credibility.” At no point did any questioning suggest that Crooms’ injuries were caused by the auto accident; rather, during the summation, defendant's counsel reinforced that the document had been offered to show Crooms had signed a false statement. The appellate court further held that because Crooms made a full recovery, with no disability or permanent injury, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s decision to deny him any compensation for future pain and suffering.
With that, Crooms was handed crumbs.
To download a copy of the Appellate Division’s decision, please use this link: Crooms v. Sauer Bros. Inc
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2178
Comments
The AD is wrong on the ruling concerning evidence of the subsequent car accident. Once the defense questioned the plaintiff concerning the contents of his affirmation concerning the car accident, he should have been permitted to rebut the supposed the statement. Form the decision, it appears that the affirmation did not contain any direct admission concerning plaintiff's presence at the accident, only an inference. Once the defense opened the door to this inference on cross-examination of the plaintiff, especially since it was introduced to attack his credibility, he had a fundamental evidentiary entitlement to rebut that inference and introduce evidence of his veracity.
If the plaintiff's lawyers felt strong enough about the in sufficiency of the award as to risk an appeal of the trial court verdict (remember -- AD can cut $$$ as well as increase them), I believe the actual record, especially plaintiff's expert's report, will tell a very diufferent picture than that stated in the AD decision.
Posted by: Gines Psamonte | May 27, 2008 11:33 AM
I have been following this blog for two years now and it's become pretty obvious to me that the appellate courts seem to be "getting it wrong" on a pretty consistent basis.
More often than not, they're hiding behind technicalities and are skirting the true issues.
This case is yet another exmaple.
As Mr. Gines notes, Crooms' attorneys had the right to "rehabilitate" their client but were denied that opportunity.
Either the court isn't telling us something or there is a complete disconnect. (See the danger of have a system where judges are appointed?)
Posted by: Theresa | May 27, 2008 12:35 PM