Vesely v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Background

A jury heard Patricia Vesely’s negligence claim against Long Island Railroad Company (LIRR). The case concerned a metal bridgeplate placed between a trash can and the underside of an ascending staircase at the LIRR Hunterspoint Avenue Station platform. Vesely tripped over the bridgeplate during her morning commute and injured her left wrist and shoulder.

The jury found that LIRR was negligent and that its negligence caused Vesely’s injury. It awarded $200,000 for pain and suffering: $90,000 for past pain and suffering and $110,000 for future pain and suffering. The jury also found Vesely negligent and 77% responsible for causing the accident. The court entered a $46,000 judgment in Vesely’s favor.

Vesely moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) for a new trial limited to damages.

Legal standard

Because the case involved state-law claims in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the court applied New York law to the damages issue. Under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 5501(c), an award is excessive or inadequate if it materially differs from reasonable compensation. The court reviewed the trial evidence and compared the award with awards in New York cases involving similar injuries. Those prior awards were useful but not binding, and the jury’s findings received substantial deference.

The injuries and comparison cases

Vesely’s wrist fracture required realignment, surgery involving a metal plate and screws, and 12 to 15 physical-therapy sessions. She permanently lost about one-third of her wrist’s range of motion and reported aching and pins-and-needles sensations associated with carpal tunnel syndrome. Her wrist was her non-dominant wrist.

Her shoulder fracture required a six-week splint, approximately ten months of physical therapy, and reverse shoulder-replacement surgery. She permanently lost about half of the shoulder joint’s range of motion. She continued to experience occasional pain and difficulty reaching high cabinets, dressing, and fully participating in activities with her grandchildren.

The court compared Vesely’s wrist injury with the injury in Conley v. City of New York and her shoulder injury with the injury in Lamb v. Babies ‘R’ Us, Inc. The court found that both cases provided helpful reference points but also identified important differences. The injuries in those cases included aggravating factors that were not present here, while Vesely’s evidence included mitigating factors, such as limited wrist pain after surgery and testimony that the shoulder replacement would produce a “good shoulder,” though not a “great shoulder.”

Court’s reasoning

The court concluded that reasonable compensation for Vesely’s past and future pain and suffering would be lower than the combined amounts suggested by the comparison cases. It then considered whether Vesely’s actual award—$90,000 for past pain and suffering and $110,000 for future pain and suffering—materially differed from reasonable compensation.

The court also considered evidence affecting the jury’s credibility assessment. It noted testimony concerning Vesely’s plans to lose weight and begin hiking, as well as an inconsistency between her trial testimony and earlier deposition testimony about where she walked before the accident. The court stated that the jury could reasonably have given her testimony about pain and suffering limited weight.

The court held that the jury’s damages award did not materially differ from reasonable compensation and that the evidence did not require disturbing the verdict.

Disposition

Judge Castel denied Vesely’s motion for a new trial solely on the issue of damages. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.