From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ayala v. Fortaleza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 27, 1995
216 A.D.2d 203 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 27, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.).


Plaintiff, a bosun on defendant's ship, was struck by sea spray in his left eye as he tightened lashings to secure cargo in rough seas. Plaintiff immediately reported the injury and was placed on restricted duty. Following three unsuccessful operations to reattach the retina, plaintiff commenced this suit under the Jones Act and the general maritime law of unseaworthiness.

The jury returned verdicts of liability under both causes of action and we reject defendants' contentions that the charge as to proximate cause with respect to the separate causes of action was confusing or erroneous. The testimony of Dr. Orellana, a retinologist who performed all three operations within months of the injury, attributed the injury to the trauma immediately complained of by plaintiff and since it is the Chief Mate's duty to ensure that all cargo is safely secured before setting sail, the jury finding of liability under the Jones Act as well as unseaworthiness for failing to provide a safe workplace is amply supported.

However, the award for future pain and suffering, even as reduced by the trial court to $950,450, deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501 [c]). Plaintiff was 61 years old on the date of the injury and while he lost the sight in one eye, he will suffer no further physical pain. Accordingly, we deem an award of $500,000 for future pain and suffering to be reasonable compensation ( compare, Crawford v Williams, 198 A.D.2d 48, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 751 [40-year-old man permanently blind in one eye in need of further surgery due to pain]; Davis v. Board of Educ., 168 A.D.2d 261, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 862 [13-year-old suffered blindness in one eye]; LaPaglia v Sears Roebuck Co., 143 A.D.2d 173 [nine-year-old, loss of eye, damages reduced to $800,000]).

Finally, the plaintiff is entitled to pre-verdict interest in this maritime case ( Escobar v. Seatrain Lines, 175 A.D.2d 741, 745-746).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Ayala v. Fortaleza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 27, 1995
216 A.D.2d 203 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Ayala v. Fortaleza

Case Details

Full title:DOMINGO AYALA et al., Respondents, v. S.S. FORTALEZA et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 27, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 203 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 289

Citing Cases

Nagel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

To support this proposition, Wal-Mart characterizes Nagel's injuries as including impairment to or loss of…

Gonzalez v. John B. Lovett Associates

While we recognize that plaintiff's injury was traumatic, painful, and to some extent permanently…