Licari v. Elliott
New York Court of Appeals
441 N.E.2d 1088 (1982)
- Written by Kheana Pollard, JD
Facts
Nicholas Licari (plaintiff) was injured in an automobile accident. Licari went to the hospital and was released two hours later, having suffered a concussion. Licari returned to work 24 days after the accident. He complained of headaches only every now and again. Licari brought a negligence action against Arthur Elliott (defendant). Elliot filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on subdivision 4 of Section 671 of the Insurance Law, also known as the No-Fault Law. The No-Fault Law says that a plaintiff must show that he suffered a serious injury that prevented the plaintiff from resuming normal activities for at least 90 of the 180 days after his accident. The case went to the jury. The jury found in favor of the Licari. Elliot appealed. The appellate court dismissed Licari’s complaint. Licari appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jasen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.