BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.
To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.
To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.
A concert promotion company has been granted a new trial over a $102 million award it argued was excessive in the case of a worker who fell and suffered a serious head injury while hanging a sign, according to a ruling issued by the Supreme Court of New York County.
Mark Perez was 30 years old at the time of his 2013 accident at a theater in Wantagh, New York, and medical testimony indicated he would likely suffer for the rest of his life. Following a number of medical interventions, including four brain surgeries and an induced coma, he filed a suit against New York-based Live Nation Worldwide Inc., arguing that the company failed to create a safe worksite, according to documents in Mark Perez v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., and Live Nation Marketing, Inc., filed in New York.
In 2016, the state Supreme Court issued a ruling in Mr. Perez’s favor, determining that Live Nation was “statutorily liable,” and the matter proceeded to a jury trial on damages. In 2019 a jury awarded Mr. Perez $102,114,768, including compensation for past pain and suffering and for past and future lost wages and medical expenses.
Live Nation, which had requested the award be set at $5.9 million, filed a motion to set aside the jury award, which it argued was “excessive and contrary to the weight of evidence.”
The state Supreme Court agreed and ordered that Mr. Perez accept a reduced award totaling $53.7 million within 45 days or that the matter be directed for a new trial to establish a new award.
“Where, as here, a court determines that certain jury awards in a personal injury action are excessive, the proper procedure is to set aside those portions of the verdict and direct a new trial thereon, unless the plaintiff stipulates to the reduced amount,” the ruling states.