From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Rowe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 11, 1980
73 A.D.2d 1030 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Summary

In Anderson v. Rowe, 73 A.D.2d 1030, 425 N.Y.S.2d 180 (1980), the appellate court affirmed denial of any award for conscious pain and suffering by two young girls who were killed when the airplane in which they were travelling crashed.

Summary of this case from Montgomery Cablevision v. Beynon

Opinion

January 11, 1980

Appeal from the Livingston Supreme Court.

Present — Cardamone, J.P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Moule, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims for conscious pain and suffering brought by the administrator of the estates of Janet Anderson and Judy Anderson was properly granted. All of the evidence shows that these girls were killed instantly upon impact. The plaintiff was not able to present any evidence that they suffered any conscious pain. Nor was the plaintiff able to show evidence from which one might imply that the decedents were aware of the danger and suffered from preimpact terror. Summary judgment was properly granted in the second action because it was not timely brought. Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint (CPLR 3025, subd [b]).


Summaries of

Anderson v. Rowe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 11, 1980
73 A.D.2d 1030 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

In Anderson v. Rowe, 73 A.D.2d 1030, 425 N.Y.S.2d 180 (1980), the appellate court affirmed denial of any award for conscious pain and suffering by two young girls who were killed when the airplane in which they were travelling crashed.

Summary of this case from Montgomery Cablevision v. Beynon
Case details for

Anderson v. Rowe

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT ANDERSON, Individually and as Administrator of the Estates of JUDY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jan 11, 1980

Citations

73 A.D.2d 1030 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Citing Cases

Shatkin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

Assuming that pre-impact pain and suffering is compensable, it must first be shown by a preponderance of the…

Ramsingh v. James

See, e.g., Rice v Corasanti, 122 AD3d 1374 [4th Dept 2014]; Houston v McNeilus Truck & Mfg., Inc., 115 AD3d…