Opinion
11-18-2014
Elissa MOTELSON, & c., et al., Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Respondents. (And Another Action.)
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, LLP, New York City (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), and The Rothenberg Law Firm LLP, New York City (Marc J. Rothenberg of counsel), for appellants. Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. (Wendy F. Lumish, of the Florida bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), and Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York City (Elliot J. Zucker of counsel), for Ford Motor Company, respondent.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, LLP, New York City (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), and The Rothenberg Law Firm LLP, New York City (Marc J. Rothenberg of counsel), for appellants.
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. (Wendy F. Lumish, of the Florida bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), and Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York City (Elliot J. Zucker of counsel), for Ford Motor Company, respondent.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The issue of whether plaintiffs Gary Motelson and Evan Motelson had suffered and/or would continue to suffer emotional distress, as a result of being placed in a zone of danger wherein they witnessed the death of Steven Motelson, while asserted in the complaint, was not argued to the jury at trial. Nor was this question addressed in Supreme Court's charge or submitted to the jury on the verdict sheet. Significantly, the questions on the verdict sheet concerning the roof support system asked the jury about the causation of “Steven Motelson's injuries and death,” and not about harms to any others. Plaintiffs did not object to the jury charge or verdict sheet. In these circumstances, Supreme Court erred when it set aside the jury verdict and ordered a new trial on damages.
Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT, RIVERA and ABDUS–SALAAM concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.