A New York court recently made significant rulings in the case of DiCarlo v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which involves a serious bus accident that left a man with lasting injuries. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled on August 5, 2026, modifying the damages awarded to the plaintiff, Luca DiCarlo, while affirming the jury's finding of fault. This decision affects how personal injury damages are calculated in similar cases in the future.
The case began when DiCarlo was struck by a B52 bus while crossing Fulton Street on March 21, 2019. DiCarlo believed he had the right-of-way when the accident occurred. He suffered various injuries, including a traumatic brain injury that required extensive medical treatment. The case was brought against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the New York City Transit Authority, and the bus operator, Roberto Perez.
After the accident, DiCarlo filed a personal injury lawsuit seeking damages for his injuries. The trial was divided into two phases: liability and damages. In the liability phase, the jury found the defendants 70% at fault for the accident, while DiCarlo was found 30% at fault. This ruling was crucial in determining the financial responsibility of the defendants for DiCarlo's injuries.
In the damages phase, the jury awarded DiCarlo $1,250,000 for past pain and suffering and $3,680,000 for future pain and suffering over a 46-year period. However, the court later reduced this future pain and suffering period to 10 years, leading to a total judgment of $3,451,000 in favor of DiCarlo. The defendants appealed this judgment, arguing that the damages awarded were excessive.
The court ruled that the jury's findings on liability were supported by the evidence presented during the trial. The judges emphasized that the bus operator had a duty to avoid colliding with pedestrians and that the jury's apportionment of fault was reasonable. The court stated, "A fair interpretation of the evidence supported the jury's apportionment of fault between the parties, in that the bus operator failed to see that which he should have seen through the proper use of his senses."
However, the court found the damages awarded for both past and future pain and suffering to be excessive. The judges noted that while DiCarlo's injuries were serious, the amounts awarded deviated materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation. The court stated, "Notwithstanding the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the verdict as to damages for past pain and suffering was excessive and deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation."
As a result, the court modified the judgment by removing the provisions awarding damages for past and future pain and suffering. It ordered a new trial on these issues unless DiCarlo agreed to reduce the amounts awarded for past pain and suffering to $750,000 and for future pain and suffering to $1,000,000. If DiCarlo agrees to these reductions, the modified judgment will be affirmed.
This ruling has important implications for future personal injury cases in New York. It clarifies how courts may assess damages in similar situations, potentially impacting the amounts awarded to plaintiffs in the future. The decision reinforces the idea that while juries have discretion in determining damages, those awards must align with what is deemed reasonable based on comparable cases.
The case also highlights the ongoing challenges faced by individuals who suffer serious injuries in accidents. It underscores the importance of thorough evidence presentation in court to ensure that damages awarded reflect the actual impact of injuries on a plaintiff's life.
As for what’s next in this case, DiCarlo has the option to appeal the court's decision or accept the reduced damages. If he chooses to accept the reductions, the case will not proceed to a new trial. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further appeals.