DiCarlo v Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury and public transit negligence, involving pedestrian-bus collision liability and whether a jury's pain-and-suffering award in a traumatic brain injury case was excessive.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, entered judgment on jury verdicts finding the defendants 70% at fault and the plaintiff 30% at fault, and awarding the plaintiff $1,250,000 for past pain and suffering and $3,680,000 for future pain and suffering over 46 years, reduced to 10 years under CPLR 5041(e) [provision governing the reduction of certain future damage awards to a 10-year period for judgment purposes].
The Appellate Division left the liability apportionment intact but modified the judgment by vacating the awards for past and future pain and suffering and ordering a new trial on those damages unless the plaintiff stipulates to reduced amounts of $750,000 for past pain and suffering and $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering.
The liability verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence because the bus operator failed to see what he should have seen and had a duty under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 [driver's statutory duty to use due care to avoid colliding with pedestrians on the roadway]. However, the damages awards materially deviated from reasonable compensation under CPLR 5501(c) [standard permitting appellate review of whether an award deviates materially from reasonable compensation] when compared with similar cases.
Background
On March 21, 2019, Luca DiCarlo crossed Fulton Street believing he had the right-of-way and was struck by a B52 bus operated by Roberto Perez. He fell and suffered multiple injuries, including an epidural hematoma, a traumatic brain injury requiring surgery and about 11 days of hospitalization. At trial, he presented evidence that he continued to experience recurring headaches roughly five years later, limiting recreation, social activity, and military service, though he remained employed full-time as a data clerk. His neurosurgeon testified that the headaches were likely permanent.
Lower Court Decision
After the liability phase, the jury apportioned fault 70% to the defendants and 30% to the plaintiff, and the trial court denied the defendants' oral motion to set aside that verdict. After the damages phase, the jury awarded $1,250,000 for past pain and suffering and $3,680,000 for future pain and suffering over 46 years, later reduced to 10 years pursuant to CPLR 5041(e). The trial court denied the defendants' oral motion to set aside the damages verdict as excessive and entered judgment for the plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,451,000.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division affirmed the liability determination, holding that the jury reasonably could find the bus operator failed to use proper care and failed to see what he should have seen. But it modified the judgment on the facts by deleting the awards for past and future pain and suffering. The court remitted the matter for a new trial on those damages unless, within 30 days after service of the decision with notice of entry, the plaintiff stipulates to reduce past pain and suffering to $750,000 and future pain and suffering to $1,000,000, after which an amended judgment may be entered.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces two recurring New York appellate principles: first, jury apportionment of fault in vehicle-pedestrian accidents will receive substantial deference when supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence; second, pain-and-suffering awards remain subject to close appellate review under CPLR 5501(c), with comparable-case analysis guiding whether a verdict materially deviates from reasonable compensation. It also shows that serious brain injuries and lingering headaches may justify substantial damages, but not amounts the appellate court finds outside accepted ranges.
A transit defendant may lose on liability yet still obtain substantial appellate relief where the damages award is out of line with comparable cases. Here, the defendants remained 70% liable for the bus-pedestrian accident, but the plaintiff's pain-and-suffering recovery was sharply reduced unless he accepted remittitur.