Summary
In Sescila v. Garine, 225 A.D.2d 684, 639 N.Y.S.2d 830 (2d Dep't 1996), the court granted a new trial to a plaintiff who suffered permanent injuries to her sciatic nerve and left lumbarsacral area in a car accident because it concluded that the jury's decision not to award future damages for pain and suffering was against the great weight of the evidence.
Summary of this case from Tisdel v. BarberOpinion
March 18, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and a new trial is granted on the issue of damages for future pain and suffering only, unless within 30 days after the service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, the defendants shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, a written stipulation consenting to increase the verdict as to the plaintiff's damages for future pain and suffering from $0 to $50,000, and to the entry of an appropriate amended judgment in her favor. In the event that the defendants so stipulate, then the judgment, as so increased and amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Generally, the amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff for personal injuries is a question for the jury, and a motion for a new trial on the issue of damages will not be granted unless the award materially differs from what is a reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Gaetan v New York City Tr. Auth., 213 A.D.2d 510).
The jury awarded the 43 year old plaintiff $50,000 for past pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, and did not award anything for future pain and suffering for permanent injuries to her sciatic nerve and left lumbosacral area that she sustained in an automobile accident. The failure to award any amount for future damages cannot be reconciled with the jury's findings that the plaintiff sustained a significant limitation of use of a body function or system and that the accident was the proximate cause of such injuries. Further, the jury's failure to award any amount for damages for future pain and suffering is against the weight of the evidence because the evidence reveals that the plaintiff must continue her treatments for the same injuries and must continue to regularly take anti-inflammatory pills to reduce the pain from those injuries. Accordingly, the failure of the jury to award any amount for future pain and suffering is inadequate to the extent indicated herein (see, Wendell v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 189 A.D.2d 1063; Powell v New York City Tr. Auth., 186 A.D.2d 728). Balletta, J.P., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.