Personal Injury Defendants Find a Friendly Court
Two leading practitioners discuss significant tort and personal injury cases decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court over the last year.
September 23, 2015 at 08:58 PM
36 minute read
Over the course of the past year, legal issues impacting the world of torts and personal injury law kept the New Jersey Supreme Court quite busy. The court's decisions in these areas have focused on the procedural, such as net opinions, adverse inference charges, civil reservations, liability issues on retrial, application of the Charitable Immunity Act and discovery under the Patient Safety Act, as well as the substantive, including bad faith in the context of uninsured motorist claims, condo association liability and an employee's comparative negligence.
It is hard to decipher a theme from among 11 opinions authored by five different justices. In some cases (see, eg., Davis v. Brickman Landscaping or Maida v. Kuskin), the court reminded practitioners and judges alike that process matters and rules should be followed. However, in other cases (C.A., ex rel. Applegrad v. Bentolila), strict application of the rules was relaxed. In one case (Qian v. Toll Brothers), the court expanded a cause of action to establish liability against a condominium association for personal injuries. In another context (Badiali v. NJM and Wadeer v. NJM), the court declined to expand bad-faith liability in uninsured motorist claims. Finally, while plaintiffs may celebrate the court's opinions in Kuchera v. Jersey Shore Family Health Center and Qian, for the most part, personal injury defendants found a friendly court over the past term, having prevailed in a clear majority of the court's opinions.
|Net Opinions and Expert Witnesses
Expert testimony is meant to assist juries in understanding complicated issues that arise at trial. An expert's opinion often determines whether a plaintiff may sustain a claim. If an expert's opinion is not based on sufficient facts or empirical data in the record, or is the product of an expert's speculation or personal theory, a court can exclude the expert's testimony as a “net opinion.” In cases where expert testimony necessary to establish liability or proximate cause is excluded, the plaintiff's case may be dismissed.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNew Methods for Clients and Families to Have Their Estate and Legacy Planning Complete
5 minute readDefense Counsel for Ex-U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez Urges Sentence of Less Than Two Years
Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 12 Judges: Meet the New Chief Justice and the GC Who Just Rose to the Bench
- 2Holland & Knight Matches Milbank Bonuses for Some Associates
- 3Akin Promotes Record Number of Lawyers to Partner
- 4Ogletree Deakins Names 5 New Office Managing Shareholders
- 5Six Judges Take Up New Leadership Roles in NYC Courts
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250