$1.8 Million Verdict Against NJ Transit Must Be Apportioned, Appeals Court Rules
The panel left the award intact, but ordered the case remanded for a new jury to allocate liability between the transit authority and a teenager who threw a liquor bottle at another passenger's head.
July 17, 2019 at 02:14 PM
4 minute read
A $1.8 million verdict against New Jersey Transit might get trimmed in light of an Appellate Division ruling that liability for a bus passenger's injuries should have been apportioned between the transit agency and a teen who threw a bottle at the plaintiff.
Passenger Anasia Maison was awarded $1.8 million for injuries suffered in an altercation with a group of unruly passengers while her bus passed through Newark. But the appeals court said Wednesday that the trial judge erred by denying a defense request to include the bottle-throwing passenger on the verdict sheet.
Maison's lawyer argued that a jury cannot allocate fault to the unidentified bottle thrower because he was not added as a party to the suit, but the Comparative Negligence Act says the jury should make a good-faith allocation of negligence among joint tortfeasors based on the evidence, not on collectability, the appeals court said.
The panel left the $1.8 million award intact but ordered the case remanded for a new jury to allocate liability between New Jersey Transit and the bottle thrower.
New Jersey Transit also claimed on appeal that the trial court erred by allowing the plaintiff to proceed without presenting expert testimony on the limits of the transit agency's duty of care.
But Judges Clarkson Fisher Jr., Richard Hoffman and Richard Geiger ruled that the matter was “not so esoteric that jurors of common judgment and experience could not form a valid judgment as to whether defendants' conduct failed to satisfy the degree of care owed to plaintiff.”
New Jersey Transit also claimed on appeal that the trial court erred by holding it to the heightened standard of negligence for common carriers. Hoffman, writing for the panel, affirmed the finding that New Jersey Transit is a common carrier, citing other public transit agencies that have termed themselves common carriers.
The appeals court said there was no reason to disturb the $1.8 million verdict because the defendants did not contest it and it was not tainted by the error in the liability portion of the case. The remand jury should not be informed of the amount of the award, the panel said.
Maison was riding on a New Jersey Transit bus when a group of male teenagers began to direct profane comments to her and to pelt her with objects. When one of the teens brandished a knife, Maison got up and changed seats. Bus driver Kelvin Coats, who witnessed the episode, said he did not intervene or call police because Maison did not ask for help and appeared to be handling herself well. But when the teens exited the bus at their stop, one of them threw a liquor bottle at Maison, striking her forehead. She bled profusely and required 22 stitches to close up her wounds.
The jury awarded $1.8 million to Maison after finding transit authority and the bus driver “fail[ed] to exercise a high degree of care in protecting plaintiff,” and that “this failure proximately cause[d] plaintiff's injuries.”
Maison's lawyer, K. Raja Bhattacharya of Bendit Weinstock in West Orange, said of the ruling, “We are pleased that the Appellate Division determined that New Jersey Transit is a common carrier and that the Appellate Division sustained the verdict amount of $1.8 million. Today's ruling benefits all the citizens of New Jersey who ride New Jersey Transit buses and trains. We are considering our options with respect to the nature of the limited remand.”
Deputy Attorney General Robert McGuire represented New Jersey Transit and Coats. A spokesman for the attorney general's office declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 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 AllHit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
$945K Settlement Reached in Fatal Crash After Truck Driver Fell Asleep at Wheel
3 minute read'That's Insane': Lawyers Weigh In on Fallout From Uber's User Agreement
7 minute readNY's Top Court Mulls Fate of Personal Injury Claims Against NJ Transit Corp.
Trending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
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