Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, Inc., 86 N.Y.2d 744 (1995)
A trial court may set aside a jury verdict and order a new trial if the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence, meaning the evidence so preponderated in favor of the moving party that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence.
Summary
Claire Lolik sued Big V Supermarkets after slipping and falling on a wet floor. The jury awarded her damages for past pain but not for future pain, and awarded nothing to her husband on his derivative claim. The trial court ordered a new trial on future pain. The Appellate Division reinstated the jury’s verdict, holding that the trial court could only set aside the verdict if there was no valid reasoning to support it. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Appellate Division applied the wrong standard and that the trial court could set aside the verdict if it was against the weight of the evidence.
Facts
Claire Lolik slipped and fell on a wet spot in Big V Supermarkets, sustaining injuries. She and her husband sued to recover damages. Medical evidence suggested the fall exacerbated a pre-existing asymptomatic arthritic condition, causing it to become symptomatic.
Procedural History
The jury awarded Claire Lolik $12,000 for past pain but nothing for future pain, and nothing to her husband. The trial court ordered a new trial on the issue of future pain. The Appellate Division reinstated the jury’s verdict, finding a rational basis for the jury’s decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the matter for further proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division applied the correct standard of review in determining that the trial court erred in setting aside the jury’s verdict as against the weight of the evidence.
Holding
No, because the Appellate Division erroneously concluded that the trial court could only set aside the verdict if there was no valid line of reasoning to support it, failing to consider whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division applied the wrong standard in reviewing the trial court’s decision. The proper standard is whether “‘the evidence so preponderate[s] in favor of the [plaintiff] that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence’” (quoting Moffatt v Moffatt, 86 AD2d 864, affd 62 NY2d 875). The Court found the Appellate Division “simply ignored the evidence supporting plaintiff’s claim and reinstated the jury’s verdict declining to award damages for future pain and suffering, erroneously concluding that inasmuch as there was evidence to support the verdict the analysis was at an end.” This case clarifies the standard for setting aside a jury verdict as against the weight of the evidence, emphasizing that the court must consider whether the evidence preponderates so heavily in one party’s favor that the jury’s verdict could not be based on a fair interpretation of the evidence. The Court effectively distinguished between the standard for judgment as a matter of law (where no valid line of reasoning supports the verdict) and the standard for a new trial (where the verdict is against the weight of the evidence).