We reject defendants' claim that the trial court erred as a matter of law in holding them responsible for all of plaintiff's damages rather than allowing the jury to decide their share of the damages based on the uncontested periods of time that they respectively owned the building in which plaintiff's injuries were sustained. There is no evidence to support a nonspeculative apportionment on this basis (see, La Fountaine v Franzese,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.