Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdamagesnegligenceliabilitystatutetrialdeliberation
plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencetrialtrust

Related Cases

Grogan v. Gamber Corp., 19 Misc.3d 798, 858 N.Y.S.2d 519, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 28113
View Case »
Dahlin v. Kron, 232 Minn. 312, 45 N.W.2d 833
View Case »
Toney v. Chester County Hosp., 961 A.2d 192, 2008 PA Super 268
View Case »
Clark v. International Harvester Co., 99 Idaho 326, 581 P.2d 784, 25 UCC Rep.Serv. 91
View Case »
Evans v. Williams, 291 Ky. 484, 165 S.W.2d 52
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Johnson v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, 71 N.Y.2d 198, 519 N.E.2d 326, 524 N.Y.S.2d 415

Facts

On September 27, 1979, a bus driver for MABSTOA reported sick and parked the bus outside the depot. Shortly after, Thomas Jones, who was intoxicated, stole the unattended bus and struck Veronica Ashby, killing her and another pedestrian. The plaintiff, Ashby's mother, filed a wrongful death action against MABSTOA, claiming negligence and violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210(a), which prohibits leaving a vehicle unattended without securing it.

On the morning of September 27, 1979, a bus driver employed by defendant Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA) returned the bus he had been driving to defendant's depot located between 146th Street and 147th Street and reported that he was sick. The MABSTOA dispatcher told the driver to “park the bus” and to sign himself out for the day. The driver parked the bus on 146th Street, outside the depot.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the decedent's after-tax income for calculating damages and whether MABSTOA could be held liable under common-law negligence and statutory violation.

Defendant also argues that, in any event, it should not be held liable in negligence under any theories advanced at trial.

Rule

The court ruled that damages for lost wages in wrongful death cases should be based on gross projected earnings, without consideration of after-tax income, and that MABSTOA violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210(a) by leaving the bus unattended and unsecured.

We hold that without express statutory direction to the contrary, the damages component of a plaintiff's award as to lost wages in this action should be based on gross projected earnings and no deduction or consideration of after-tax net should be allowed into evidence or charged to the jury.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by affirming the trial court's decision to exclude after-tax income from the damages calculation, emphasizing that allowing such evidence would introduce unnecessary speculation into the jury's deliberation. The court also found that MABSTOA's actions constituted a violation of the statute, as the bus was left unattended in a manner that facilitated theft and subsequent harm.

While there is respectable authority (Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Liepelt, 444 U.S. 490, 494, 100 S.Ct. 755, 758, 62 L.Ed.2d 689 [1980], reh. denied 445 U.S. 972, 100 S.Ct. 1667, 64 L.Ed.2d 250; Morgan Guar. Trust Co. v. Texasgulf Aviation, 604 F.Supp. 699 [1985]), and while abstract logic could favor defendant's view, we conclude that such a rule would inject an unacceptably speculative and distracting feature into the jury's consideration of damages, and thus we reject it as a matter of statutory construction, practical policy and sound jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Appellate Division's order, holding that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings and that MABSTOA was properly held liable for the wrongful death.

We affirm the order of the Appellate Division, 125 A.D.2d 1010, 508 N.Y.S.2d 964, and hold that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary or charge rulings on the tax aspects of the damages calculation.

Who won?

The plaintiff, Veronica Ashby's mother, prevailed in the case because the court upheld the trial court's findings of liability against MABSTOA for negligence and statutory violation.

The jury found defendant MABSTOA liable on common-law negligence and on the statutory violation.

You must be