Zecher v. Backus
Opinion of the Court
—Amended order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Following a trial, the jury found that plaintiff had sustained a serious injury and that defendant was negligent, but found that defendant’s negligence was not “a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs injury.” Plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as inherently inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence. Supreme Court granted the motion and directed a new trial on damages only. We conclude that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence with respect to the issue of proximate cause and thus was properly set aside to that extent. The testimony of plaintiffs treating physicians established that the accident was at least a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs injury. The preponderance of the evidence on the issue of proximate cause was so great that the verdict finding that defendant was negligent but that his negligence did not proximately cause plaintiffs injuries could not have been
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.