Case Name: Elissa Motelson, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Brian Motelson, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. Ford Motor Company et al., Respondents. (And Another Action.)
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-11-18
Citations: 24 N.Y.3d 1025
Docket Number: 
Parties: Elissa Motelson, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Brian Motelson, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v Ford Motor Company et al., Respondents. (And Another Action.)
Judges: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 1025–1027

Head Matter:
[22 NE3d 186, 997 NYS2d 678]
Elissa Motelson, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Brian Motelson, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v Ford Motor Company et al., Respondents. (And Another Action.)
Argued October 22, 2014
decided November 18, 2014
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
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:
OPINION OF THE COURT
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.