Court Opinion

ID: 2752430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-11-18 14:04:56.395673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:09:00.742825
License: Public Domain

=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 195
Elissa Motelson, &c., et al.,
            Appellants,
        v.
Ford Motor Company, et al.,
            Respondents.
(And Another Action.)

          Brian J. Isaac, for appellants.
          Wendy Lumish, for respondent Ford Motor Company.

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

                              - 1 -
                                 - 2 -                           No. 195

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.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *    *    *      *   *   *   *   *   *    *   *
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman
and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam
concur.

Decided November 18, 2014

                                 - 2 -