Jesse Spellman v. New York City Transit Authority

Jesse Spellman v. New York City Transit Authority

Case Name

Jesse Spellman v. New York City Transit Authority

Type of Injury

BILATERAL ABOVE-THE-KNEE AMPUTATIONS

Occupation

day laborer

Location

Bronx, NY

Verdict

$3,677,007. Breakdown: $2,000,000 for past pain and suffering; $57,007 for past medical expenses; $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering; $500,000 for home aid; $75,000 for home furnishings?

Verdict Amount

$3,677,007.00

Case Details

XIII/8-7 SUBWAY ACCIDENT PASSENGER MUGGED AND THROWN TO TRACKS MOTORMAN FAILS TO STOP TRAIN IN TIME BILATERAL ABOVE-THE-KNEE AMPUTATIONS

Jesse Spellman v. New York City Transit Authority 15678/92 3-week trial Verdict 5/1/95 Judge Bertram Katz, Bronx Supreme

VERDICT: $3,677,007. Breakdown: $2,000,000 for past pain and suffering; $57,007 for past medical expenses; $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering; $500,000 for home aid; $75,000 for home furnishings; $45, 000 for modification of residence. Post-trial motions were denied. Jury: 3 male, 3 female. Notice of Appeal by Deft.

Pltf. Atty: Alan M. Shapey of Harry H. Lipsig & Partners, Manhattan

Deft. Atty: Jeffrey Samel, Manhattan

Facts: Pltf., a 43-year-old day laborer, claimed that on 3/18/91 at 10 PM he was waiting for a train at the 170th St. IRT Number 4 station when he was mugged. Pltf. testified that he was unable to recall the incident, but theorized that he was hit by the train after he was thrown to the track approximately 400 feet from where the train enters the station. Pltf. claimed that the evidence indicated that he entered the station with money, identification, and a black bag, none of which was seen at the location or recovered by the police. There was also evidence that Pltf. sustained a laceration on the back of his head. Pltf. produced medical records indicating that he made a statement that he had been chased and robbed at the station. The motorman testified at his deposition that he saw what looked like a jacket on the tracks, but that he did not attempt to stop the train until he saw the jacket move. Pltf. contended that the motorman had the time and distance to stop the train and that he should have stopped as soon as he saw something on the tracks.

Deft. argued that Pltf. had a high blood alcohol content at the time of the incident, which caused him to fall to the tracks. Pltf. admitted that he had a drinking problem in the past. Deft. produced witnesses who testified that Pltf. still had a drinking problem at the time of the incident. Deft. claimed that Pltf. made several contradictory statements at the hospital as to how the incident occurred, and that in one of his statements he admitted that he had been drinking.

Injuries: bilateral above-the-knee amputation. Pltf. was confined to a wheelchair and requires 12-hour-a-day care. Deft. contended that Pltf. was in a homeless shelter at the time of the incident and did not require as much care as he claimed. Demonstrative evidence: expert’s charts of life care plan for Pltf.; photos of Pltf.’s stumps.

Note: Judge Katz found that Deft. NYCTA failed to disclose photographic evidence, struck Deft.’s answer, and entered judgment on liability. A 50B hearing is pending. No offer; demand: $7,500,000. Jury deliberation: 5 hours. Pltf. Experts: Edmond Provder, vocational rehabilitation, Manhattan; Les Seplaki, economist, New Jersey. Deft. Expert: Dr. Malcolm Reid, rehabilitative medicine, Manhattan.

Disclaimer: The information on this website and blog is for general informational purposes only and is not professional advice. We make no guarantees of accuracy or completeness. We disclaim all liability for errors, omissions, or reliance on this content. Always consult a qualified professional for specific guidance.

RECENT POSTS

How Care Planning Improves Legal and Medical Outcomes
May 18, 2026
Learn how care plan management and life care planning improve medical treatment, legal documentation, recovery support, and long-term patient outcomes.
OAS personal injury evaluation covering brain, spinal, and trauma injuries assessment
May 4, 2026
Learn how Occupational Assessment Services evaluates injury types in personal injury cases. Understand brain, spinal, and emotional injury impacts clearly.
Understanding Gross Negligence with OAS Injury Assessments
April 20, 2026
In this guide, we’ll break down what gross negligence means, how it differs from standard negligence, and why it matters in a personal injury case evaluation.
Personal injury lawsuit process overview with OAS expert support
April 6, 2026
Learn the full personal injury lawsuit process and how OAS expert services strengthen cases, improve evidence, and help maximize compensation outcomes.
Why Your Car Accident Settlement Is Delayed – Tips & Insights
March 23, 2026
Learn why car accident settlements take longer than expected and how careful documentation, patience, and preparation can help avoid unnecessary delays.

CONTACT US