D.R. v. Santos Bakery, Inc.

Background

On November 22, 2019, D.R. was struck in a crosswalk by the side mirror of a truck owned by Santos Bakery, Inc. and driven by its employee, Wilson Villa Tenmaza. D.R.’s mother, Towana Rodriguez, brought claims on D.R.’s behalf and individually. After a jury trial, the jury found both D.R. and Villa negligent, but found that D.R.’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. It awarded D.R. $280,000 for past pain and suffering, $2,000,000 for future pain and suffering, and $200,250 for future medical expenses.

The defendants moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59 to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and to obtain a new trial. They argued that the negligence findings were inconsistent, that the future pain-and-suffering award was excessive, and that the future-medical-expense award was speculative. The opinion also states that the court had previously dismissed D.R.’s claim for past medical expenses because the trial record contained no testimony about those expenses.

Analysis

Alleged inconsistency in the negligence findings. The court denied this part of the motion. Under New York law, a finding that a person was negligent but that the negligence was not a substantial factor in causing an accident is inconsistent only when the two findings cannot logically be reconciled. The court concluded that the jury could reasonably find that D.R. was negligent for failing to look for oncoming traffic while crossing with the walk signal, yet also find that her conduct did not substantially cause the accident. The jury could have concluded that the concrete support beam blocked D.R.’s view of the truck and that she would have been struck even if she had looked as she stepped from behind the beam. The court also noted that the jury could have found that the truck driver’s negligence, rather than D.R.’s conduct, caused the accident.

Future pain and suffering. The court denied the defendants’ request to reduce or set aside the $2,000,000 award. Applying New York’s standard for determining whether an award materially deviates from reasonable compensation, the court considered evidence of D.R.’s continuing headaches, difficulty concentrating, reduced enjoyment of reading and other activities, academic difficulties, changes in appearance, teasing, and reduced self-esteem. The court also considered expert testimony that D.R. suffered from chronic pain and despair and that her facial injuries caused asymmetry. Because D.R. was a child when injured, the court considered the longer period over which the injuries could affect her life. It concluded that the award was within a reasonable range when compared with similar cases.

Future medical expenses. The court granted the defendants’ request to set aside the $200,250 award. Future medical expenses must be supported by competent evidence showing that the treatment is reasonably certain to be needed and the likely cost. The court found no such evidence. Testimony that D.R. might need another root canal lacked a stated basis and cost estimate. Possible cosmetic surgery was not shown to be necessary, recommended, or likely to be chosen, and some other procedures were not recommended because their risks outweighed their benefits. Testimony about possible medication likewise did not establish a recommendation, cost, or duration. Because the award was entirely speculative and unsupported by evidence, the court set it aside under Rule 50 rather than order a remittitur or a new trial on that issue.

Disposition

Judge Parker granted the defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part. The court set aside the $200,250 future-medical-expense award and otherwise denied the motion. It directed the Clerk to enter an amended judgment awarding D.R. $280,000 in past pain and suffering and $2,000,000 in future pain and suffering, for a total of $2,280,000, and to close the case.