BROOKLYN, N.Y. (Legal Newsline) - A New York appeals court threw out a jury verdict in favor of manufacturer Newell Rubbermaid, giving the plaintiff a second chance to prove she was injured when a step stool collapsed underneath her.
Michelle Montesione and her husband sued Newell Rubbermaid after she claimed she was injured at work in 2013 by the collapsing step stool. One of her coworkers threw the stool in the trash after her accident, eliminating the primary physical evidence.
At the trial in 2018, the manufacturer presented an expert witness who said the accident could have happened because she slipped and fell on the stool. The jury subsequently answered “no” to the question of whether the stool collapsed and caused her injury and the trial judge entered a judgement for the defense. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the finding was contrary to the weight of the evidence and the expert shouldn’t have been allowed to offer an alternative opinion about how the accident may have occurred.
New York’s Second Appellate District court reversed the judgment, saying the verdict was “contrary to the weight of the evidence.” In a unanimous decision released March 3, the court didn’t describe that evidence, although it presumably gave substantial weight to the plaintiff’s description of the accident.
The court noted that jury verdicts should not be overturned unless unless “the 'evidence so preponderate[s] in favor of the [moving party] that the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence.’”
In this case, the court ruled without providing specifics, “the jury could not have reached the verdict it did by any fair interpretation of the evidence.” The appeals court also said the defense expert’s testimony was “speculative, lacked support in the record and should not have been admitted in evidence.”
The court ordered a new trial and awarded costs to the plaintiff.