Lifson v. City of Syracuse

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department · 2011 · Torts

Tortsnew triallimited retrialapportionment of faultcomparative faultjury charge erroremergency instructionliability

Facts

Plaintiff's decedent was struck by a vehicle driven by defendant Klink while crossing a street in the City of Syracuse. In a prior bifurcated liability trial, the jury found Klink not at fault, the City 15% at fault, and decedent 85% at fault. The Court of Appeals later ruled that the emergency instruction given concerning Klink's claim that sun glare temporarily blinded him was erroneous and could have affected the outcome. On remittal, Supreme Court ordered a single de novo trial on the liability and culpable conduct of all parties.

Issue

When a jury-charge error affected only the determination of one defendant driver's liability, must the new trial include the liability of all parties, or may it be limited to that defendant's liability while preserving the previously determined fault of the city and the decedent subject to reapportionment?

Rule

Where reversible error affects only the determination of one party's liability, a new trial should be limited to that party's liability, and previously established fault findings as to other parties need not be retried. In that limited retrial, the jury should be instructed that the other parties were at fault, but the percentages of their fault must be considered together with the percentage of fault, if any, of the party being retried.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Buffalo, Nora Benton was injured when a delivery van driven by Evan Pike struck her near a poorly timed crosswalk maintained by the city. At a bifurcated liability trial, the jury found Evan not negligent, the city 25% at fault, and Nora 75% at fault. On appeal, the only reversible error was an improper jury instruction on Evan's claimed sudden visual obstruction from steam rising off the road.

What is the proper scope of the new trial?

Explanation. Where the reversible error affected only one party's liability determination, the new trial should be limited to that party's liability. The previously established fault of the other parties need not be retried, but their percentages are not permanently fixed; apportionment must be considered together with the retried party's fault, if any. That is the rule applied by the majority opinion.