Motelson v Ford Motor Co., 24 NY3d 1025 (2014)

2014 NY Slip Op 07926 [24 NY3d 1025]
November 18, 2014
Court of Appeals

[*1]

In the Matter of 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.)

Motelson v Ford Motor Co., 101 AD3d 957, affirmed.

{**24 NY3d at 1027} 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 [*2]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.