Key Takeaway
New York appellate court rules that expert witness testimony is not always required to prove damages when injuries are straightforward and within a jury's understanding.
Personal injury cases often involve complex questions about the extent of damages a plaintiff has suffered. One common dispute that arises is whether expert witness testimony is required to establish the nature and scope of these damages. While expert testimony can be valuable in complicated cases involving technical medical issues, New York courts have made clear that it’s not always necessary — particularly when the injuries and their consequences are straightforward enough for a jury to understand without specialized knowledge.
The Third Department’s recent decision in Zapata v Yugo J & V, LLC provides important guidance on this issue, clarifying when plaintiffs can rely on their own testimony and medical records rather than expensive expert witnesses to prove their damages. This ruling has significant implications for how personal injury attorneys approach proof of damages in cases involving clear-cut injuries.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Zapata v Yugo J & V, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02687 (3d Dept. 2020)
“Turning to the issue of damages, we reject Yugo’s contention that Supreme Court erred in not requiring expert testimony to prove plaintiffs’ damages. Generally speaking, “expert testimony is appropriate when it serves to clarify an issue that is beyond the ken of the lay juror and calls for professional or technical knowledge” (Payette v Rockefeller Univ., 220 AD2d 69, 74 ; see generally De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307 ).
Here, there is no question that the injuries that plaintiffs’ sustained were a direct result of the fall precipitated by the deck collapse (see Madsen v Merola, 288 AD2d 520, 521 ). Moreover, plaintiffs’ testimony regarding the nature and permanency of their injuries, coupled with the medical records introduced into evidence, were not beyond the competence of plaintiffs or the ordinary experience and knowledge of a lay jury so as to require expert testimony to render an appropriate damages award (see Payette v Rockefeller Univ., 220 AD2d at 74; compare Razzaque v Krakow Taxi, 238 AD2d 161, 162 )“
Key Takeaway
The Zapata decision reinforces that expert witness testimony is not automatically required to prove damages in personal injury cases. When injuries are straightforward and the connection between the incident and damages is clear, plaintiffs can rely on their own testimony combined with medical records. This can significantly reduce litigation costs while still allowing for appropriate damage awards.
