Bernstein v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 794 (1987)

A plaintiff in a negligence action must present sufficient evidence to allow a jury to reasonably infer that the defendant’s negligence caused the injury, and cannot recover if the injury could have resulted from multiple causes, one or more of which the defendant is not responsible for, without proving the injury was sustained wholly or in part by a cause for which the defendant was responsible.

Summary

Bernstein sued the City of New York for negligence after slipping and falling on ice. The plaintiff claimed the ice formed from precipitation prior to a major snowfall, implying the City was negligent in not clearing it. The Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the ice was from the earlier precipitation, rather than the more recent heavy snowfall. The court reasoned that the jury’s conclusion was speculative because the plaintiff did not adequately demonstrate that the ice patch could have formed from the earlier precipitation and lasted until the date of the accident. This case highlights the necessity of proving causation and negating other possible causes in negligence claims.

Facts

The plaintiff slipped and fell at an intersection near a bus stop in the Bronx, fracturing his kneecap. The plaintiff testified that after falling, he discovered a sheet of ice about two feet long, six to seven inches wide, and a half-inch thick under a dusting of snow. The City’s Department of Sanitation had performed snow removal and salting in the area for three days before the accident. Meteorological data showed 8-10 inches of snow fell in the days immediately preceding the accident, with ice pellets and glaze. Before that, only a trace amount of snow had fallen several days prior, which had largely disappeared by the next morning. The plaintiff presented no evidence of weather variations at the specific accident location.

Procedural History

The plaintiff sued the City of New York for negligence and won a jury verdict at trial. The City appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The City then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude that the ice patch that caused his fall resulted from the earlier, minor precipitation, as opposed to the more recent, substantial snowfall.

Holding

No, because the plaintiff’s evidence was speculative and did not adequately establish that the ice patch was a result of the minor precipitation days before the accident.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that the jury’s verdict was based on speculation. The court cited the principle that where there are several possible causes of an injury, for one or more of which the defendant is not responsible, the plaintiff cannot recover unless they prove the injury was sustained wholly or in part by a cause for which the defendant was responsible. The court emphasized that to support the jury’s verdict, the evidence must support the plaintiff’s view of the cause of the injury over opposing views. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that the ice patch resulted from the earlier precipitation. The court stated, “To conclude that an ice patch — two feet by six inches by a half inch — resulted from the January 9 snowfall is wholly speculative.” The evidence only indicated the possible existence of an unmeasurable trace of snow or ice before the major snowstorm. The plaintiff did not demonstrate that such a small amount of precipitation could form an ice patch of the dimensions observed and last until the accident date. Because the plaintiff failed to adequately demonstrate causation, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the complaint.