Figliomeni v. Board of Education of the City School District of Syracuse
New York Court of Appeals
38 N.Y.2d 178, 379 N.Y.S.2d 45, 341 N.E.2d 557 (1975)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Rocco Figliomeni (plaintiff) was a 14-year-old student at a school operated by the Board of Education of the City School District of Syracuse (board) (defendant). Rocco was severely handicapped, possessing a low intelligence quotient and limited vision. Rocco was in a special class for children with severe problems. Joseph Gangemi (defendant) was one of Rocco’s teachers. Rocco was permitted limited physical activities, such as jumping and playing with a small, soft ball. Nevertheless, Gangemi, who had not reviewed Rocco’s health card, threw a hard baseball to Rocco that apparently struck Rocco in the head. Rocco subsequently suffered numerous maladies, including drowsiness from which he could not be aroused, a skull fracture that was discovered via surgery, a postoperative infection, and recurring epileptic seizures that prevented Rocco from being able to work. Rocco and his father, Frank Figliomeni (plaintiff), sued the board and Gangemi, seeking recovery for Rocco’s injuries and related damages. The jury, which the supreme court instructed to impose liability on Gangemi and the board for any medical malpractice that may have been committed by Rocco’s postaccident doctors, found in favor of Rocco and Frank, awarding Rocco $18,000 and a larger amount to Frank. The supreme court set aside the jury’s damages-award to Rocco as inadequate and ordered a new trial solely on damages. The board and Gangemi appealed, seeking a new trial regarding both liability and damages. The appellate division rejected the board and Gengemi’s contention. After a damages retrial without a jury, the supreme court awarded Rocco $125,000 in damages, which the appellate division increased to $175,000. The board and Gangemi appealed, reiterating their position that the second trial should have included liability.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fuchsberg, J.)
Dissent (Cooke, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.