Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LAURETTA v. ARREDONDO

June 21, 1972

Salvatore LAURETTA, Plaintiff,
v.
Albert ARREDONDO, Defendant


Levet, District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEVET

LEVET, District Judge.

This personal injury case growing out of an automobile collision was first tried as to liability. Plaintiff prevailed by a jury verdict. The same jury heard the proof as to damages and returned a special verdict thereon.

 Defendant at the completion of plaintiff's case on liability moved to dismiss for lack of sufficient proof and for a directed verdict on two grounds: (1) lack of proof of defendant's negligence; (2) lack of proof of plaintiff of freedom from contributory negligence. The court reserved decision.

 After plaintiff's proof as to damages, defendant renewed his motions as to liability and the court again reserved decision. At that time defendant also moved to dismiss claims for future pain, suffering and disability. The court reserved decision.

 After the jury verdict on damages, defendant renewed motions as to liability and attacked the damage verdict particularly as to (1) past loss of wages, (2) past pain, suffering and disability, and (3) future pain, suffering and disability.

 The basis of defendant's grounds for relief in this case were stated as follows:

 
"(1) The verdict is contrary to law.
 
"(2) The verdict is contrary to the evidence.
 
"(3) The evidence considered in its most favorable light on behalf of the plaintiff is insufficient to support any verdict in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant herein.
 
"(4) The evidence shows, as a matter of law, that the injuries, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, on the day of the accident, were the result of his own gross contributory negligence both in double parking and without having lights in the front of his vehicle while double parked.
 
"(5) The verdict of the jury herein is excessive and is not supported by the evidence and appears to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice." (Defendant's Memorandum, p. 1.)

 I

 LIABILITY

 The claim against defendant was based primarily upon the fact that there was no doubt that defendant, driving his car on Eastchester Road in the Bronx on May 12, 1968 struck plaintiff's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.