In Wilson v. Galicia Contr. & Restoration Corp ., Lamont Wilson's left eye was seriously injured when he was supposedly hit by a falling piece of metal scaffolding that had been assembled by Safeway Steel Products.
Wilson withdrew his case against other defendants -- after an expert concluded the object in his eye was not scaffolding-related, but rather a lead air-gun pellet -- but continued his claim against Safeway because the company's answer had been stricken due to its noncompliance with the court's discovery directives. (As a result, Safeway was deemed to have admitted "all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability.")
Even though Safeway produced evidence that Wilson's claim was "fraudulent," the Kings County Supreme Court held it couldn't be considered and denied Safeway's motion to dismiss the case.
Since the company was unable to present an excuse justifying its failure to comply with the underlying discovery order, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed.
When the case reached the New York State Court of Appeals, our state's highest court determined Safeway was unable to offer a defense to Wilson's claim in view of it's "absolute" liability.
In a dissent, Judge Pigott argued the "compelling" evidence should have been considered and, at a minimum, a hearing should have been required to determine whether Wilson "procured the judgment by fraud."
Would that have been a safe way for the majority to go?
For a copy of the Court of Appeals' decision, please use this link: Wilson v. Galicia Contr. & Restoration Corp