The Court of Appeals examined a question faced often by counsel in matters where the existence of a defendant's liability insurance is at risk of being raised when examining a witness as to his or her interest in a liability insurance carrier connected to the defendant. The Court of Appeals found that the Supreme Court, in a dental malpractice jury trial, had not erred in allowing defendant's motion to preclude plaintiff's counsel's cross-examination of an expert witness as to his shareholding in the defendant dentist's malpractice liability insurer in Salm v Moses 2009 NY Slip Op 07479.
In granting the defendant's counsel's in limine motion to preclude this questioning of the witness, who with the defendant also had an interest in the defendant's insurance carrier, the Supreme Court had found that the probative value of the questioning was outweighed by the prejudicial effect of revealing the existence of the insurance. First Department affirmed and was affirmed in turn by the Court of Appeals.
"Although cross-examination is a matter of right (see Matter of Friedel v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y., 296 NY 347, 352 [1947]), it is well settled that its scope and manner are left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see Bernstein v Bodean, 53 NY2d 520, 529 [1981]; Feldsberg v Nitschke, 49 NY2d 636, 643 [1980], rearg denied 50 NY2d 1059 [1980]). Therefore, absent an abuse of discretion, a trial court's determination is beyond our review.
Evidence that a defendant carries liability insurance is generally inadmissible (see Leotta v Plessinger, 8 NY2d 449, 461 [1960], rearg denied 9 NY2d 688 [1961]; Simpson v Foundation Co., 201 NY 479, 490 [1911]). The rationale underlying this rule is twofold. First, "it might make it much easier to find an adverse verdict if the jury understood that an insurance company would be compelled to pay the verdict" (Loughlin v Brassil, 187 NY 128, 135 [1907]). Second, evidence of liability insurance injects a collateral issue into the trial that is not relevant as to whether the insured acted negligently. Although we have acknowledged that liability insurance has increasingly become more prevalent and that, consequently, jurors are now more likely to be aware of the possibility of insurance coverage, we have continued to recognize the potential for prejudice (see Oltarsh v Aetna Ins. Co., 15 NY2d 111, 118-119 [1965]; see also Barker and Alexander, Evidence in New York State and Federal Courts § 4:63, at 260-261 [5 West's NY Prac Series 2001] ["Because the prejudice quotient is obvious, the rule barring such evidence is one of the least controversial in the law of evidence"]).
The rule, however, is not absolute. If the evidence is relevant to a material issue in the trial, it may be admissible notwithstanding the resulting prejudice of divulging the existence of insurance to the jury. For example, we have held that evidence that a defendant insured a premises is relevant to demonstrate ownership or control over it (see Leotta, 8 NY2d at 462). Likewise, it was proper to allow cross-examination of a physician regarding the fact that the defendant's insurance company retained him to examine the plaintiff in order to show bias or interest on the part of the witness (see Di Tommaso v Syracuse Univ., 172 App Div 34, 37 [4th Dept 1916], affd without opn 218 NY 640 [1916]).
Here, we perceive no abuse of discretion in Supreme Court's evidentiary ruling. Such evidence may be excluded if the trial court finds that the risk of confusion or prejudice [*3]outweighs the advantage in receiving it (see Kish v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 76 NY2d 379, 384-385 [1990]). In this case, plaintiff speculated during the colloquy that a verdict in defendant's favor could result in a $100 benefit — at the time of the expert's death, disability or retirement — based on the expert's shareholder status in OMSNIC. The trial court's finding that any such financial interest was likely "illusory" and that the possibility of bias was attenuated was reasonable on this record. Absent a more substantial connection to the insurance company — or at least something greater than a de minimis monetary interest in the carrier's exposure — the court did not engage in an abuse of discretion in precluding the testimony. We note that a voir dire of an expert outside the presence of the jury can better aid the court in exploring the potential for bias. "
Because plaintiff's counsel did not seek that the witness be cross-examined in the absence of the jury, it was held that the Supreme Court was correct in granting the motion before hearing the evidence in question and reserving its decision.
Court of Appeals: Sufficient Expert Evidence When Not "Utterly Irrational" That Hard To Quantify "Larger Stroke" Arose From Malpractice
In Lang v Newman 2009 NY Slip Op 04696 the trial plaintiff experienced symptoms and was transported for treatment to hospital where she was examined by defendant doctors in succession, the latter of which ordered a CT scan, but not admit her for treatment and gave her headache medication after she declined to undertake a more invasive diagnostic procedure.
Shortly after, after ordering the plaintiff undertake an MRI, the plaintiffs primary physician (not a defendant) diagnosed her as having suffered a stroke and admitted the plaintiff to a different hospital where she was given anti-coagulant medication.
The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant doctors and their medical groups and was successful against the second doctor (who had assumed her care on the first doctor's ending of his shift) on the grounds that she had suffered permanent injuries from the stroke, by reason that she was not admitted to hospital for further diagnosis and treatment. The plaintiff was not successful on grounds that the doctors had failed to administer an anti-coagulant drug.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial verdict, over a 2 justice dissent.
The Court of Appeals affirmed:
"Evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict if "there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational men to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial" (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]). Plaintiff's expert testified that if Firman had admitted plaintiff to the hospital rather than discharging her, the stroke would have been diagnosed, she would have been given an anticoagulant, and the failure to administer that medicine resulted in "a little larger stroke than she should have had if she was properly treated." Despite the fact that the expert also stated that it was "very hard to quantify" precisely how much additional damage plaintiff suffered as a result of Firman's negligence, we cannot say that the jury's finding of liability on this theory was "utterly irrational" (id.) or that no basis of proof existed to support the verdict. Consequently, the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence."
Shortly after, after ordering the plaintiff undertake an MRI, the plaintiffs primary physician (not a defendant) diagnosed her as having suffered a stroke and admitted the plaintiff to a different hospital where she was given anti-coagulant medication.
The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant doctors and their medical groups and was successful against the second doctor (who had assumed her care on the first doctor's ending of his shift) on the grounds that she had suffered permanent injuries from the stroke, by reason that she was not admitted to hospital for further diagnosis and treatment. The plaintiff was not successful on grounds that the doctors had failed to administer an anti-coagulant drug.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial verdict, over a 2 justice dissent.
The Court of Appeals affirmed:
"Evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict if "there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational men to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial" (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]). Plaintiff's expert testified that if Firman had admitted plaintiff to the hospital rather than discharging her, the stroke would have been diagnosed, she would have been given an anticoagulant, and the failure to administer that medicine resulted in "a little larger stroke than she should have had if she was properly treated." Despite the fact that the expert also stated that it was "very hard to quantify" precisely how much additional damage plaintiff suffered as a result of Firman's negligence, we cannot say that the jury's finding of liability on this theory was "utterly irrational" (id.) or that no basis of proof existed to support the verdict. Consequently, the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence."
Court of Appeals Affirms First Department: Expert Witness's Reliance Upon Purportedly Held "Human Factor" Industry Design Standards Not Sound
In Hotaling v The City of New York 2009 NY Slip Op 04303 the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the First Department in Hotaling v City of New York 2008 NY Slip Op 07951 [55 AD3d 396] and held that the expert witness's testimony was insufficient at law to sustain a prima facie case of negligent design, referring to Buchholz v Trump 767 Fifth Ave., LLC 2005 NY Slip Op 04613 [5 NY3d 1].
The appellant had been awarded damages at trial before a jury for an accident that occurred while he was employed by the City. The basis of the appellants claim was negligent design. The appellant walked through a double swinging door during a fire drill and while turning right to continue to a staircase to exit the building was immediately hit by the second of the swinging doors being used by another exiting person.
At trial the appellant led evidence through an expert witness, the doors were negligently designed in that they allowed for an accident of the type in question, where a person was walking immediately to the staircase, that they were not restricted from swinging too quickly, and that the narrow viewing panel in the doors were too restrictive such as to prevent a person using the door from establishing it was safe to use. In contrast to the plaintiff, who did not lead any evidence that the City had violated the Building code at the time the building had been built, the City led evidence through its expert witness that the building design fully complied with the Building Code, and that the plaintiff's expert witness's conclusions that the design of the doors violated industry standard were erroneous.
First Department held:
The absence of a violation of the New York City Building Code may not always establish, as a matter of law, the absence of negligent design. Especially if there is no Building Code provision directly applicable to a particular design feature, other types of industry-wide standards may be applicable to determine whether a party was negligent. In either event, however, in this matter there is insufficient support for plaintiffs' negligent design claim. Before a claimed industry standard is accepted by a court as applicable to the facts of a case, the expert must do more than merely assert a personal belief that the claimed industry-wide standard existed at the time the design was put in place. Nor are mere nonmandatory guidelines and recommendations sufficient (see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544-545 [2002]; Capotosto v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 2 AD3d 384, 386 [2003]). The expert must offer concrete proof of the existence of the relied-upon standard as of the relevant time, such as "a published industry or professional standard or . . . evidence that such a practice had been generally accepted in the relevant industry" at the relevant time (Jones v City of New York, 32 AD3d 706, 707 [2006]).
In Buchholz v Trump 767 Fifth Ave., LLC (5 NY3d 1 [2005]), the Court affirmed a grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint of a plaintiff who had accidentally fallen through a 13th-floor window in the course of roughhousing, where the plaintiff's expert had asserted that industry standards required installation of either tempered glass or a protective barrier bar, because "[p]laintiff's expert cited no authority, treatise, standard, building code, article or other corroborating evidence to support his assertion that good and accepted engineering and building safety practices" required these measures (id. at 8-9).
The essence of plaintiffs' claim was the assertion by Lustbader that the design of the doors at issue deviated from "human factors" design standards. Lustbader primarily relied upon the Human Factors Design Handbook, by Woodson and Tillman, for the industry standards he applied. However, he failed to establish that these purported standards were published, generally accepted, or even in existence in 1970. His testimony on that point was limited to his asserted "belief" that the first edition of the handbook "goes back some 30, 40 years," and that "the early versions predate 1970." However, not only did he fail to establish the existence of any such pre-1970 version, but also he did not verify that any such purported pre-1970 version contained the same standards as the later edition upon which he relied. Indeed, defendants established in their posttrial motion that the first edition of the Woodson handbook was published in 1981, rendering Lustbader's reliance on the standards set forth in the handbook inapplicable as a matter of law.
As to plaintiffs' contention that, although the handbook had not yet been published, the underlying principles were widely accepted prior to 1970, they merely cite three cases that discuss the admissibility of testimony regarding human factors standards without addressing whether the standard existed at the relevant time so as to be applicable to the facts at issue (see Wichy v City of New York, 304 AD2d 755 [2003]; Nowlin v City of New York, 182 AD2d 376 [1992], affd 81 NY2d 81 [1993]; Elmlinger v Board of Educ. of Town of Grand Is., 132 AD2d 923, 924 [1987]). While expert testimony as to human factors design standards has been ruled [*3]admissible, nevertheless, plaintiffs' expert failed to establish that the human factors design industry standards he relied upon were published or in general acceptance in the building construction industry in 1970.
Since the testimony of plaintiffs' expert failed to support plaintiffs' claim that the design of the doors in question violated accepted industry standards at the time the school was built, plaintiffs failed as a matter of law to make out a prima facie case of negligent design. The judgment must therefore be reversed and the complaint dismissed.
The appellant had been awarded damages at trial before a jury for an accident that occurred while he was employed by the City. The basis of the appellants claim was negligent design. The appellant walked through a double swinging door during a fire drill and while turning right to continue to a staircase to exit the building was immediately hit by the second of the swinging doors being used by another exiting person.
At trial the appellant led evidence through an expert witness, the doors were negligently designed in that they allowed for an accident of the type in question, where a person was walking immediately to the staircase, that they were not restricted from swinging too quickly, and that the narrow viewing panel in the doors were too restrictive such as to prevent a person using the door from establishing it was safe to use. In contrast to the plaintiff, who did not lead any evidence that the City had violated the Building code at the time the building had been built, the City led evidence through its expert witness that the building design fully complied with the Building Code, and that the plaintiff's expert witness's conclusions that the design of the doors violated industry standard were erroneous.
First Department held:
The absence of a violation of the New York City Building Code may not always establish, as a matter of law, the absence of negligent design. Especially if there is no Building Code provision directly applicable to a particular design feature, other types of industry-wide standards may be applicable to determine whether a party was negligent. In either event, however, in this matter there is insufficient support for plaintiffs' negligent design claim. Before a claimed industry standard is accepted by a court as applicable to the facts of a case, the expert must do more than merely assert a personal belief that the claimed industry-wide standard existed at the time the design was put in place. Nor are mere nonmandatory guidelines and recommendations sufficient (see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544-545 [2002]; Capotosto v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 2 AD3d 384, 386 [2003]). The expert must offer concrete proof of the existence of the relied-upon standard as of the relevant time, such as "a published industry or professional standard or . . . evidence that such a practice had been generally accepted in the relevant industry" at the relevant time (Jones v City of New York, 32 AD3d 706, 707 [2006]).
In Buchholz v Trump 767 Fifth Ave., LLC (5 NY3d 1 [2005]), the Court affirmed a grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint of a plaintiff who had accidentally fallen through a 13th-floor window in the course of roughhousing, where the plaintiff's expert had asserted that industry standards required installation of either tempered glass or a protective barrier bar, because "[p]laintiff's expert cited no authority, treatise, standard, building code, article or other corroborating evidence to support his assertion that good and accepted engineering and building safety practices" required these measures (id. at 8-9).
The essence of plaintiffs' claim was the assertion by Lustbader that the design of the doors at issue deviated from "human factors" design standards. Lustbader primarily relied upon the Human Factors Design Handbook, by Woodson and Tillman, for the industry standards he applied. However, he failed to establish that these purported standards were published, generally accepted, or even in existence in 1970. His testimony on that point was limited to his asserted "belief" that the first edition of the handbook "goes back some 30, 40 years," and that "the early versions predate 1970." However, not only did he fail to establish the existence of any such pre-1970 version, but also he did not verify that any such purported pre-1970 version contained the same standards as the later edition upon which he relied. Indeed, defendants established in their posttrial motion that the first edition of the Woodson handbook was published in 1981, rendering Lustbader's reliance on the standards set forth in the handbook inapplicable as a matter of law.
As to plaintiffs' contention that, although the handbook had not yet been published, the underlying principles were widely accepted prior to 1970, they merely cite three cases that discuss the admissibility of testimony regarding human factors standards without addressing whether the standard existed at the relevant time so as to be applicable to the facts at issue (see Wichy v City of New York, 304 AD2d 755 [2003]; Nowlin v City of New York, 182 AD2d 376 [1992], affd 81 NY2d 81 [1993]; Elmlinger v Board of Educ. of Town of Grand Is., 132 AD2d 923, 924 [1987]). While expert testimony as to human factors design standards has been ruled [*3]admissible, nevertheless, plaintiffs' expert failed to establish that the human factors design industry standards he relied upon were published or in general acceptance in the building construction industry in 1970.
Since the testimony of plaintiffs' expert failed to support plaintiffs' claim that the design of the doors in question violated accepted industry standards at the time the school was built, plaintiffs failed as a matter of law to make out a prima facie case of negligent design. The judgment must therefore be reversed and the complaint dismissed.
