$300,000 result- cited in The New York Jury Verdict Reporter

XVIII/37-46A Shooting - Teen Shot In Face With Defendants - Air Rifle By Nonparty Teen - Legal Blindness In One Eye - Mediation

Jaqueline Pellegrino, indiv. and as Adm. of Est. of Matthew Nola v. Arthur Taylor, Rose Taylor, Joseph Bradley, and Ilene Taylor 10094/99 Date of Decision 10/13/00 Mediator: Harvey Schneider Mediation Company: Island Arbitration and Mediation Service, Inc., Mineola

Pltf. Atty: Alan M. Greenberg, Manhattan

Deft. Atty: Joseph Lafferty of Moore & Associates, Manhattan, for Arthur and Rose Taylor

Barry K. Myrvold of Hawkins, Feretic, Daly, Maroney & Hayes, P.C., Manhattan, for Joseph Bradley and Ilene Taylor

This action settled at mediation for $300,000 (policy limit). On 10/11/97, Pltf., age 13, was loitering at a vacant lot behind the Eltingville train station in Staten Island while another teen, Deft. Bradley, was firing at tin cans with a daisy air rifle owned by his mother, Deft. Ilene Taylor. Deft. Bradley put the rifle down, and another teen picked it up and aimed it at Pltf. Despite Pltf.’s pleas not to shoot him, the teen fired the rifle at Pltf.’s face. The shooter and his family were not insured, and they were not named in the lawsuit. He was arrested and pleaded guilty and was placed in a juvenile detention facility. Defts. Arthur and Rose Taylor owned the house where Ilene Taylor and her son, Joseph Bradley, lived. They were aware of the gun’s existence, having previously discovered it in their garage. Deft. Arthur had instructed Irene to get rid of the gun, but she failed to do so. Joseph discovered it while rummaging through the garage.

Pltf. claimed that Defts. Arthur and Rose Taylor were negligent for not insuring that the rifle was disposed of after learning of its existence. She contended that Deft. Ilene Taylor was negligent in the entrustment of a dangerous criminal instrumentality to her son, who, in turn, entrusted it to the shooter.

Defts. argued that Article 16 of the CPLR applied and that a jury, had it gone to trial, should be instructed with regards to intentional tortfeasor liability, but Pltf. claimed that CPLR §1602 exceptions for intentional acts applied so as to permit joint and several liability of insured Defts. for the
shooter’s liability.

Injuries: blunt trauma to the right eye resulting in permanent legal blindness. Pltf. underwent an exploration of the globe of the right eye with removal of a metal pellet. His vision in his right eye is 20/300. He sees shapes centrally, but has no peripheral vision in the eye. Pltf. claimed that his grades suffered after the shooting. Pltf.’s mother testified that Pltf. has become socially withdrawn. No offer; demand: $300,000 (homeowner’s insurance policy limit). Carrier: Travelers Property & Casualty.

Note: Due to the lack of excess coverage, the potential difficulty in avoiding jury apportionment of liability to the uninsured shooter, and Pltf. mother’s refusal to pursue any excess verdict against the grandparent homeowners, Pltf.’s counsel recommended a settlement.