New York Law Review

Tag: Directed Verdict

  • Schelberger v. Eastern Savings Bank, 60 N.Y.2d 569 (1983): The Presumption Against Suicide in Life Insurance Cases

    Schelberger v. Eastern Savings Bank, 60 N.Y.2d 569 (1983)

    In an action to recover life insurance proceeds, a presumption exists against suicide, and a finding of suicide is warranted only if the jury is satisfied that no conclusion other than suicide may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.

    Summary

    This case concerns a dispute over life insurance proceeds where the insurer claimed the insured committed suicide within the policy’s two-year suicide clause. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of the beneficiary, reiterating the enduring presumption against suicide in such cases. The court held that the insurer failed to prove conclusively that the insured’s death was a suicide, emphasizing that the evidence presented allowed for other reasonable conclusions. The court upheld the jury instruction regarding the presumption against suicide and declined to alter existing state law on the matter, finding no compelling reason to do so.

    Facts

    Edward Schelberger was insured under a life insurance policy issued by Eastern Savings Bank on May 1, 1978, with his wife as the beneficiary. The policy included a standard clause limiting liability to premiums paid if the insured died by suicide within two years of the policy’s issue date. Schelberger died on December 25, 1979, within this two-year period, from an overdose of Tuinal, a barbiturate. The insurer denied the beneficiary’s claim for the policy’s face amount, alleging suicide, and tendered only the premiums paid.

    Procedural History

    The beneficiary sued to recover the policy proceeds. The trial court denied the insurer’s motion for a directed verdict. The jury found in favor of the beneficiary. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted review and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury regarding the presumption against suicide in a life insurance claim.

    Whether the insurer was entitled to a directed verdict based on the evidence presented, arguing the death was conclusively a suicide.

    Holding

    Yes, the trial court’s instruction regarding the presumption against suicide was proper because it accurately reflected New York law.

    No, the insurer was not entitled to a directed verdict because the evidence did not conclusively establish suicide, allowing for other reasonable inferences about the cause of death.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court held that the jury instruction correctly stated New York law, citing Begley v. Prudential Ins. Co., 1 N.Y.2d 530. The court reaffirmed the presumption against suicide, noting it “springs from strong policy considerations as well as embodying natural probability.” The court rejected the insurer’s argument to modify the law, stating that neither statistical data nor the decriminalization of suicide warranted a change. The court also pointed out that the legislature was considering the issue of presumptions in the Proposed Code of Evidence, suggesting that any changes should come from the legislature, if at all.

    Regarding the directed verdict, the court emphasized that a finding of suicide is warranted only if “no conclusion other than suicide, may reasonably be drawn.” The court found that the evidence did not compel such a conclusion. While the insured died from a drug overdose, evidence showed he was a frequent user of the drug, and his prior overdose recovery suggested the possibility of accidental overdose rather than intentional self-destruction. The court also noted the absence of a suicide note, financial troubles, or any debilitating physical condition. A neighbor’s testimony indicated the insured appeared happy and friendly shortly before his death, further undermining the claim of suicide. The court stated that autopsy and death certificates listing suicide were merely the opinion of the physician and not conclusive evidence.

    The court concluded that the question of whether the death was a suicide was properly submitted to the jury, and there was no basis for disturbing the jury’s verdict in favor of the beneficiary. The court briefly addressed the insurer’s claims of trial errors, finding none warranted reversal.

  • Cohen v. City of New York, 50 N.Y.2d 939 (1980): Directing Verdicts When No Rational View Favors the Defense

    Cohen v. City of New York, 50 N.Y.2d 939 (1980)

    A directed verdict is appropriate when, after considering the evidence, no rational jury could find in favor of the non-moving party.

    Summary

    The plaintiff, injured when a New York City fire truck struck her legally parked car, sued the city for negligence. At trial, the fire captain admitted he should have seen the parked car. The fire department’s investigation attributed the accident to an “error of judgment.” The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict, and the jury found for the city. The Appellate Division reversed, directing a verdict for the plaintiff on liability. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Appellate Division acted properly, as no rational interpretation of the evidence could support a verdict for the defendant.

    Facts

    The plaintiff was sitting in her legally parked car when it was struck by a fire truck attempting to make a turn.

    Captain Brennan, the fireman directing the truck, testified that he did not see the parked car, although he should have.

    A fire department investigation concluded the accident was due to an “error of judgment” by a fireman in a non-emergency situation.

    Procedural History

    The plaintiff sued the City of New York for negligence.

    The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of evidence.

    The jury returned a verdict in favor of the City.

    The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision and directed a verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of liability.

    The City appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Appellate Division properly directed a verdict for the plaintiff when the evidence of the defendant’s negligence was uncontroverted, and no rational jury could have found in favor of the defendant.

    Holding

    Yes, because given the evidence of the defendant’s fault, and the absence of any evidence contradicting it, the Appellate Division properly directed a verdict for plaintiff.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, emphasizing that a directed verdict is appropriate when the trial court should have taken such action based on the evidence.

    The court cited CPLR 5522, allowing the Appellate Division to reverse and direct a verdict when the trial court erred by not doing so.

    The court applied the standard articulated in Blum v. Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 NY 241, 245, stating that a directed verdict is proper when “by no rational process could the trier of the facts base a finding in favor of the defendant upon the evidence presented.”

    The Court found that the fireman’s admission that he should have seen the parked car, coupled with the fire department’s investigation attributing the accident to an “error of judgment,” constituted uncontroverted evidence of the defendant’s negligence.

    The absence of any contradictory evidence meant that no rational jury could have found in favor of the City, justifying the Appellate Division’s decision to direct a verdict for the plaintiff.

  • Joyce v. Rumsey Realty Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 118 (1966): Strict Liability for Labor Law Violations Resulting in Injury

    Joyce v. Rumsey Realty Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 118 (1966)

    A contractor’s violation of the New York Labor Law, specifically the requirement to complete flooring as a building progresses, constitutes conclusive evidence of negligence and imposes absolute liability when a worker is injured as a result of that violation.

    Summary

    The plaintiff, a construction worker, was injured when a plank he was standing on broke, causing him to fall through an uncovered opening to the basement. The defendant, the contractor, had failed to comply with New York Labor Law requiring flooring to be completed as the building progressed. The Court of Appeals held that the contractor’s violation of the Labor Law constituted conclusive evidence of negligence, and the plaintiff was entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of liability. The court reasoned that the statute imposes an absolute and unconditional duty on the contractor, and the worker’s injury directly resulted from the contractor’s failure to fulfill that duty. The fact that the plank broke was considered a concurrent cause, not negating the contractor’s primary liability.

    Facts

    The plaintiff was working on the fourth floor of a building under construction. The first, second, and third floors had not been fully floored as required by the New York Labor Law. The plaintiff was moving planks when the plank he was standing on broke. As a result, the plaintiff fell through the open floors into the basement, sustaining injuries.

    Procedural History

    The trial court directed a verdict for the plaintiff against the defendant Bumsey, the contractor, on the issue of liability, leaving the determination of damages to the jury. The contractor appealed this decision, arguing that the breaking of the plank was an intervening cause that should negate their liability. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the contractor’s violation of the Labor Law constituted conclusive evidence of negligence.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a contractor’s failure to comply with the New York Labor Law requiring flooring to be completed as a building progresses constitutes conclusive evidence of negligence when a worker is injured as a result of falling through an uncovered opening, warranting a directed verdict on the issue of liability.

    Holding

    Yes, because the statute imposes an absolute and unconditional duty on the contractor to complete flooring, and the worker’s injury directly resulted from the contractor’s failure to fulfill that duty. The violation of the statute is conclusive evidence of negligence, regardless of other contributing factors.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that the New York Labor Law imposes a “flat and unvarying” duty on contractors to complete flooring as a building progresses. Citing prior cases like Koenig v. Patrick Constr. Corp., the court reiterated that “For breach of that duty, thus absolutely imposed, the wrongdoer is rendered liable without regard to his care or lack of it.” The court further stated that a violation of such a statute is “conclusive evidence of negligence,” warranting a directed verdict. The court rejected the argument that the breaking of the plank was an intervening cause, stating that “Something must project him into the hole but that something cannot be more than a concurrent cause of the injury.” The court feared that allowing a jury to find no cause of action would nullify the statute’s protective intent for workers in situations such as the plaintiff’s. The court concluded that the statute places absolute and unconditional liability on the contractor in favor of the workman who falls through the floor opening that the statute insists must be covered.