Kaplan v. City of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 794 (1977)

Evidence of a prior condition is inadmissible when the issue is the safety of a condition at the time of the accident, and failure to object to a jury charge waives appellate review of any errors therein.

Summary

In this personal injury case, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision to exclude evidence of the radiator cover’s condition six months before the accident. The court reasoned that the relevant inquiry was the safety of the radiator cover at the time of the accident, not its prior condition or the quality of any repairs. Furthermore, the Court held that the plaintiff waived their right to appellate review regarding errors in the jury charge by failing to object or take exception to the charge at trial. The Court found that no error deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial as a matter of law.

Facts

The plaintiff was injured while working on a radiator cover. At trial, the plaintiff attempted to introduce evidence regarding the condition of the radiator cover approximately six months before the accident. The trial court excluded this evidence.

Procedural History

The trial court ruled against the plaintiff after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The plaintiff then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether evidence of the condition of the radiator cover approximately six months prior to the accident was properly excluded.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s failure to object or take exception to the court’s charge to the jury preserved any alleged errors in the charge for appellate review.

Holding

1. No, because the issue was the safety of the radiator cover as it existed on the day of the accident, not its prior condition.
2. No, because failure to assert any objections or exceptions to the charge means any error was not preserved for review.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the evidence of the radiator cover’s condition six months before the accident was not relevant to the central issue: whether the radiator cover, as it existed on the day of the accident, was a safe place to work. The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s claim did not concern negligent repairs or whether the original condition was safer. The court focused on the state of the radiator cover at the time of the injury.

Regarding the jury charge, the court applied the well-established rule that a party must object or take exception to a jury charge at trial to preserve any alleged errors for appellate review. The court found that the plaintiff’s silence at trial constituted a waiver of their right to challenge the charge on appeal. The Court also stated, “[N]or can it be said that the actions of the trial court deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial as a matter of law.” This suggests a very high bar for overturning a verdict based on unpreserved errors in a jury charge.