From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richardson v. N.J. Cavagnaro Sons Machine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1994
202 A.D.2d 411 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 7, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On March 23, 1982, the plaintiff Robert Richardson was injured when his right hand was caught in a hydraulic press manufactured and serviced by the defendant N.J. Cavagnaro Sons Machine Corp. (hereinafter Cavagnaro). The accident occurred on the premises of the third-party defendant, Marotta Co., Inc. (hereinafter Marotta), a private commercial sanitation collector, which was Richardson's employer. The jury found Marotta negligent in its maintenance and operation of the hydraulic press and returned a verdict holding Marotta 70% at fault and Cavagnaro 30% at fault for Richardson's injuries. Marotta appeals, and we affirm.

Marotta contends that the jury's verdict, which found Richardson free of any comparative negligence, was against the weight of the evidence. We reject that contention. It is well settled that a jury verdict will not be set aside unless the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Scott v. Mason, 155 A.D.2d 655).

In the instant action, Richardson was operating a hydraulic press. Intending the inside plate to descend, Richardson pressed a button. There was testimony that Richardson may have pressed the wrong button, causing the plate to rise. The evidence further revealed that the press was designed without an interlock system, allowing it to be operated with the doors open, thus contributing to the accident and injuries. There was also evidence that Marotta removed a guard arm so that the operator of the press was required to place his arm into the press and guide the plate with his hand. Although there was evidence as to possible negligence on Richardson's part (based on the testimony that he may have pressed the wrong button), the jury could have reasonably concluded that any such negligence, even if it was established, was not a proximate cause of the injury, and that it was Marotta's negligence in removing the guard arm that was a proximate cause of the injury to the extent that it was 70% at fault in the happening of the accident. Thus, the jury's verdict, finding Richardson free of any comparative negligence, was not against the weight of the evidence.

We find Marotta's remaining contentions to be without merit (see, O'Neill v. Mildac Props., 162 A.D.2d 441; see also, Rubin v Pecoraro, 141 A.D.2d 525). Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Richardson v. N.J. Cavagnaro Sons Machine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1994
202 A.D.2d 411 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Richardson v. N.J. Cavagnaro Sons Machine

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT RICHARDSON, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v. N.J. CAVAGNARO SONS…

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

Date published: Mar 7, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 411 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
608 N.Y.S.2d 505

Citing Cases

Utsey v. City of N.Y.

Insofar as contrary evidence may have suggested that plaintiff was not careful in looking where she was…

Utsey v. City of New York

Insofar as contrary evidence may have suggested that plaintiff was not careful in looking where she was…