$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
New Jersey Transit bus.
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
© 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 All![Engine Manufacturer Escapes Suit Over NJ Helicopter Crash That Killed Country Music Star Engine Manufacturer Escapes Suit Over NJ Helicopter Crash That Killed Country Music Star](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/aa/f1/e7c0f9b64d82a3de298b367d6629/troy-gentry-767x633.jpg)
Engine Manufacturer Escapes Suit Over NJ Helicopter Crash That Killed Country Music Star
3 minute read![Bus Company Pays $5 Million in Death of Disabled Child Bus Company Pays $5 Million in Death of Disabled Child](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/8a/40/7f43c6c84accbc14c50d68c221b7/bigstock-school-bus-diagonal-665063-767x633.jpg)
![Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/b9/31/8d57a31646778adac6a18b21e3ff/midtown-traffic-767x633.jpg)
Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
4 minute read![So Who Won? Congestion Pricing Ruling Leaves Both Sides Claiming Victory, Attorneys Seeking Clarification So Who Won? Congestion Pricing Ruling Leaves Both Sides Claiming Victory, Attorneys Seeking Clarification](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/njlawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/296/2020/06/NJ-New-Jersey-resized.jpg)
So Who Won? Congestion Pricing Ruling Leaves Both Sides Claiming Victory, Attorneys Seeking Clarification
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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