$25,519,500 Sustained by Trial Court on $28 Million Verdict

Monday, May 27, 2019

Trial Judge Finds That Awards for Rape and Assault Were Not Excessive

NEW YORK – A Westchester jury award of $28 million dollars was almost fully sustained by the trial judge this week. The $25,519,500 that was sustained resulted from a November 2018 trial involving a former Mount Vernon student who was raped after she was led off the Mount Vernon High School campus. The verdict is believed to be the largest physical and sexual assault jury verdict in New York State history.

CONTINUING COVERAGE OF RECORD-BREAKING $28 MILLION VERDICT FOR PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ASSAULT

Merson Law Wins Largest Sexual Assault Verdict in NY State History

Girl, 14, Raped On Her Way Home From School Then Assaulted In MVHS Locker Room Days Later

BREAKING: $28,000,000 Verdict

BREAKING: $28,000,000 Verdict

News Release


Friday, November 30, 2018

For further information contact Jordan Merson at jmerson@mersonlaw.com or (212) 390-1712 or Andrew S. Buzin at (646) 470-4878 or by email abuzin@buzinlaw.com.

Former Student Gets $28 Million Jury Award Against Mount Vernon School District For Sexual and Physical Assault

NEW YORK – A Westchester Jury has awarded $28 million dollars to a former student that was raped after being led off Mount Vernon High School campus when she was supposed to be in class and on the special education bus. The verdict is believed to be the largest physical and sexual assault jury verdict in New York State history.

The case involved a 14-year-old girl who was in the special education program at Mount Vernon High School when the sexual assault occurred. The lawsuit brought on her behalf in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County, charged that the Mount Vernon High School failed to properly supervise her.

The jury award is one of the largest ever in the County and the trial lasted approximately one month. The lawyers for the girl were Jordan Merson of Merson Law, PLLC, and Andrew Buzin of Buzin Law, P.C. The claim is believed to be fully insured and the insurance carrier refused to make a reasonable settlement offer in advance of a verdict.

Mr. Buzin said, “after almost seven years of being mistreated by the School District, it took a jury to deliver justice and hold them accountable.”

Mr. Merson added that, “This is a wonderful family that deserves every penny that the jury awarded. This young girl has endured unimaginable horror due to the negligence of the school district.”

Biographical Information:

Jordan Merson is a nationally recognized personal injury and sexual assault attorney, handling some of the largest cases in New York and the Country. He is licensed to practice in New York, New Jersey, District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania.

Andrew S. Buzin is licensed to practice in New York and Florida, and focuses on general negligence cases as well as those involving medical malpractice and wrongful death.

Link

FAN SAFETY BACK IN THE NEWS

This past week a little girl attended a baseball game with her grandfather at Yankee Stadium and was struck by a 105-mph foul ball.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/frazier-touch-family-girl-hit-105-mph-foul-ball-article-1.3514244

Typically cases involving these types of injuries are not viable because fans “assume the risk” of this outcome when they purchase a ticket, and incidents such as these are written off as “accidents.”

But numerous articles this week questioned whether these injuries were preventable with an inexpensive fix: extended netting.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2017/09/21/mlb-commissioner-rob-manfred-increase-netting-child-hit-ball

https://www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-preview-2016/nets

One article even brought up a past incident that occurred that resulted in the death of a baseball spectator:

http://nypost.com/2017/09/20/this-mlb-fan-danger-problem-shouldve-been-fixed-47-years-ago/

Science has told us that even the most attentive fans don’t stand much of a chance when a line drive is ripped into the stands.

Given that only the teams can prevent injuries of this type, isn’t it time that they are held accountable if they choose not to simply extend the protective netting? All the ingredients for a viable claim are present: (1) duty to protect fans; (2) foreseeability of injuries of this type; (3) breach of the duty to protect fans; (3) their breach caused harm.

If teams choose to not extend their netting, then they should be able to be held responsible for their malfeasance.