New York Court of Appeals, 2014

Motelson v. Ford Motor Co.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 18, 2014 · Abdus, Graffeo, Lippman, Pigott, Read, Rivera, Salaam, Smith

24 N.Y.3d 1025; 22 N.E.3d 186

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Schneider v. Hanasab (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Vargas v. Crown Container Co., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Martel v. Southampton Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
GARDNER, BRANDON WILLIAM v. STATE OF NEW YORK (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
GREVELDING, JR., PETER E. v. STATE OF NEW YORK (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Houston v. McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Houston v. McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Grevelding v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Grevelding v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Gardner v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Gardner v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.