| Leto v Amrex Chem. Co., Inc. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05600 [85 AD3d 1509] |
| June 30, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Joseph A. Leto et al., Respondents, v Amrex ChemicalCompany, Inc., Appellant. |
—[*1] Faraci Lange, L.L.P., Rochester (Stephen G. Schwarz of counsel), for respondents.
Malone Jr., J. Appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lebous, J.), entered June15, 2010 in Broome County, upon a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiffs, and (2) from an orderof said court, entered June 15, 2010 in Broome County, which, among other things, denieddefendant's motion to set aside the verdict.
Plaintiff Joseph A. Leto (hereinafter plaintiff), a plumber, and his wife, derivatively,commenced this action to recover damages for respiratory injuries that plaintiff allegedly sufferedas a result of a chemical spill that occurred while plaintiff was working in defendant's facility inOctober 2005. After defendant conceded negligence for the occurrence of the spill, a jury trialwas held on the issues of causation and damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffson the issue of causation and awarded damages totaling $2,511,150 for past and future pain andsuffering, future lost earnings, and past and future medical expenses.[FN*]Defendant unsuccessfully moved to, among other things, set aside the verdict and strike or reducecertain damages awards, and judgment was subsequently entered in favor of plaintiffs. Defendantappeals from the order denying its postverdict motion and from the judgment.[*2]
Initially, defendant contends that a multitude of errorsmade by Supreme Court warrant a new trial. We disagree. Defendant first contends that plaintiffs'counsel made various improper remarks during summation. However, because apparently neitherparty requested it, summation was not transcribed and, thus, we are unable to review defendant'scontentions with respect thereto (see Sabia v National Fuel Gas Corp., 292 AD2d 807[2002]; Wilcox v Morrow, 226 AD2d 1077, 1077-1078 [1996]). Moreover, we find noabuse of Supreme Court's discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial on this basis,as it was in the best position to assess whether defendant was prejudiced by the remarks ofplaintiffs' counsel (see e.g. Straub v Yalamanchili, 58 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2009];Pyptiuk v Kramer, 295 AD2d 768, 770 [2002]).
Next, we are not persuaded that defendant was prejudiced by Supreme Court's dismissal ofplaintiffs' claim for punitive damages at the close of proof, rather than earlier in the trial.Moreover, to the extent that defendant claims prejudice arising out of allegedly improper remarksabout punitive damages by plaintiffs' counsel during summation, these are not reviewable for thereason stated above (see Sabia v National Fuel Gas Corp., 292 AD2d at 807; Wilcoxv Morrow, 226 AD2d at 1077-1078). Defendant also claims that Supreme Court erroneouslydenied its motion to strike the testimony of an expert environmental chemist on the basis that histestimony was speculative. However, the record reveals that the expert provided facts as to theproperties of several chemicals utilized at defendant's facility and provided an opinion as to thecombination and amounts of those that could create chlorine gas, which was the type of gas thatcould have caused plaintiff's respiratory injuries. Because this "opinion [was] based onestablished facts relevant to the controversy" (Soulier v Hughes, 119 AD2d 951, 952-953[1986]), we find that the court did not err in refusing to strike it (see Bulman v P & R Enter., 17 AD3d1139, 1140 [2005]).
Defendant next contends that Supreme Court improperly refused to give a spoliation chargeand a toxic tort charge to the jury. Although defendant contends that a spoliation charge waswarranted due to plaintiff's failure to retain the shirt he wore on the day of the accident, insofar asdefendant does not establish that plaintiff was on notice that this evidence would be needed fortrial, we are not persuaded that the court was required to give such charge to the jury (compare Marotta v Hoy, 55 AD3d1194, 1197-1198 [2008]; Bigelow vDick's Sporting Goods, 1 AD3d 777, 777-778 [2003]). As for defendant's request for atoxic tort charge, although the charge ultimately given to the jury differed from what defendantrequested, we find that it adequately conveyed the proper legal principle (see e.g. Delong v County ofChautauqua, 71 AD3d 1580, 1581 [2010]).
Turning to defendant's challenge to the damages awards, although we are not persuaded thatthe jury's failure to award plaintiff any damages for past lost earnings renders its award for futurelost earnings a nullity, we nevertheless agree that the award for future lost earnings is against theweight of the evidence, and Supreme Court should have granted defendant's motion to set asidethe verdict in this respect (see e.g. Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746[1995]; O'Brien v Mbugua, 49AD3d 937, 939 [2008]). Plaintiff was awarded $1,260,000 for future lost earnings, but wedo not find that that amount was established with reasonable certainty (see O'Brien vMbugua, 49 AD3d at 939; Beadleston v American Tissue Corp., 41 AD3d 1074, 1078[2007]).
The evidence in the record establishes that plaintiff—now self-employed—payshimself a wage equal to 1,600 hours a year at the union job rate, pursuant to the same unioncontract under which he was formerly employed. Thus, it is reasonably certain that plaintiffearned[*3]$44,900 in wages and pension contributions in 2009.According to the union contract, he would have received $79,482 in wages and pension benefits,which results in a difference of $34,582; multiplied by 21 years, this results in a future lostearnings award of $726,222. Accordingly, the award for future lost earnings should be reduced to$726,222 or a new trial ordered on these damages if plaintiffs will not stipulate to that amount(see O'Brien v Mbugua, 49 AD3d at 940).
Next, defendant contends that the awards of $140,000 for past pain and suffering and $1million for future pain and suffering are excessive. In reviewing such awards, we must determinewhether they "deviate[ ] materially from what would be reasonable compensation" (CPLR 5501[c]; see Garrison v Lapine, 72 AD3d1441, 1442 [2010]). As for past pain and suffering, the evidence established that, before theaccident, plaintiff was healthy, fairly fit and very active in sports and outdoor activities. In theyears between the accident and the trial, plaintiff suffered from increasing fatigue andprogressively worsening shortness of breath, experienced lung spasms when exposed to very coldor very hot air temperatures and had a constant throbbing-type pain in his chest. Plaintiff's abilityto restfully sleep was hindered and fluid build-up frequently awakened him in the night. Due tohis limited respiratory function, he no longer participated in sports or other outdoor activities andis dependent on inhaled respiratory medications. Evidence in the form of lung function testingresults establishes that plaintiff had a fairly significant decrease in lung capacity and performanceduring this time, which provided support for the subjective reports of plaintiff's physicallimitations. Based on this evidence, we find that an award of $140,000 for past pain and sufferingis reasonable compensation.
However, we reach a different conclusion with respect to the $1,000,000 award for futurepain and suffering. The evidence at trial supported a finding that, as a result of the accident,plaintiff suffered from a significant obstructive and restrictive lung disease, which is unlikely toimprove and, potentially, could continue to worsen. Although "[a]n award for pain and sufferingis inherently a subjective inquiry, not subject to precise quantification, and generally presents aquestion of fact for the jury" (Petrilli vFederated Dept. Stores, Inc., 40 AD3d 1339, 1343 [2007]), plaintiff simply has notsuffered the type of catastrophic injury that justifies a seven-figure award (see Nolan v Union Coll. Trust ofSchenectady, N.Y., 51 AD3d 1253, 1257 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 705[2008]). After a review of other cases involving respiratory injuries (see Swedowski v Ethicon, Inc., 6AD3d 1198 [2004]; Robert v Long Is. R.R. Co., 161 AD2d 346 [1990], lvdenied 76 NY2d 712 [1990]; Aguirre v Long Is. R.R. Co., 16 Misc 3d 1111[A], 2007NY Slip Op 51384[U] [2007]), we find that the award for future pain and suffering should bereduced to $500,000 or a new trial ordered on these damages if plaintiffs will not stipulate to thatamount (see O'Brien v Mbugua, 49 AD3d at 940).
We also find merit in defendant's argument that the $100,000 award for future medicalexpenses should be set aside. Plaintiffs' proof on this issue consisted of evidence regardingplaintiff's past medical testing and medications, as well as the testimony of his treating physicianthat he expected plaintiff's future medical tests and medications to remain the same. However,there was no evidence regarding how much these tests and medications had already cost plaintiffor would cost in the future. Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the stipulated past medicalexpenses award cannot be projected forward to determine these future costs (see Swedowskiv Ethicon, Inc., 6 AD3d at 1199; Hotaling v CSX Transp., 5 AD3d 964, 970 [2004]). In the absenceof competent proof of the cost of plaintiff's anticipated medical costs, he is not entitled to anaward for future medical expenses (see Petrilli v Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 40 AD3d at1344; Swedowski v Ethicon, Inc., 6 AD3d at 1199).[*4]
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.Ordered that the judgment and order are modified, on the facts, without costs, by reversing somuch thereof as awarded plaintiff Joseph A. Leto $100,000 for future medical expenses,$1,260,000 for future lost earnings and $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering; vacate theaward for future medical expenses and a new trial ordered on the issue of damages for future lostearnings and future pain and suffering unless, within 20 days after service of a copy of the orderherein, plaintiffs stipulate to reduce the amount of the award for future lost earnings to $726,222and for future pain and suffering to $500,000, in which event said judgment and order, as somodified, are affirmed.
Footnote *: No award was made for past lostearnings or on the derivative claim.