A mom went to the high school ball field to watch her son play baseball. As she walked from the parking lot to the bleachers by the junior varsity field, she lost her balance and broke her ankle. In a subsequent lawsuit against the school district to recover for her personal injury, the court held that the area where she fell was in an unimproved condition.
In a 3-2 decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently barred accident victims from recovering their medical expenses from the negligent driver causing the injury. In this case, the victim had chosen a reduced personal injury protection (PIP) coverage of $15,000 but his medical expenses far exceeded that coverage. He therefore filed suit against the negligent driver to recover the excess unpaid medical expenses.
New Jersey automobile owners receive coverage for medical expenses incurred in the event of injuries sustained in a car accident through the personal injury protection (PIP) portion of their automobile insurance policy.
In a recent Appellate Division decision, the court considered the claim of an auto accident victim who had caught a ride with a fellow member of a non-profit charitable arts organization. The organization arranged for percussion instrument performances and competitions for its members. It would inform the members of the time, date and location of rehearsals and performances and provided directions.
The Appellate Division recently ordered a new trial in an auto accident case involving a Hispanic plaintiff. The court found that defense counsel’s cross-examination of the Colombian-born plaintiff about his citizenship, how long he lived in the United States, and his need for an interpreter could appeal to juror prejudice, inflame certain jurors and distract them from their proper role as evaluators of evidence.
In a recent unreported decision, the Appellate Division upheld the dismissal of a trip and fall complaint arising from an accident on a residential sidewalk. The plaintiff claimed that the homeowner had planted a tree on his property which caused the sidewalk to become raised and buckled, on which the plaintiff tripped and fell. The homeowner admitted the condition of the sidewalk but claimed that he had only planted trees in his backyard. The homeowner did repair the sidewalk, but only after the town issued him a summons for failure to maintain the sidewalk.
Attorneys will sometimes file accident lawsuits with a questionable basis, which often comes back to haunt them. A recent unreported Appellate Division decision is instructive.
A woman involved in an automobile collision had the lawsuit threshold (see https://www.middlesexcountyaccidentlawyer.com/what-is-the-lawsuit-threshold/).
She admitted that no part of her body struck the inside of the vehicle, that her parked vehicle was not moved by the impact, and that she told the responding officer that she was not injured and that she did not need an ambulance.The other driver testified that she did not feel any impact and that there was no damage to her car.
As we have often said, the success or failure of a personal injury case will come down to the facts. A recent unreported Appellate Division decision in a slip and fall case makes that clear.
The plaintiff tripped over an uneven sidewalk abutting the defendant homeowners’ property. She alleged that she tripped because of the elevation of the sidewalk slab and the decorative white stones that had spilled on the sidewalk obscuring the elevation of the sidewalk.
Generally, the owner of a commercial property has the duty to maintain the adjoining sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition and may be liable to pedestrians using the sidewalks if those are unsafe. Two recent Appellate Division decisions considered whether the sites of two separate accidents were commercial properties for liability purposes.
In a personal injury case, the plaintiff is obligated to prove at trial that her injuries are causally related to the accident. Typically this is accomplished through the use of a medical expert who evaluates the plaintiff, provides an expert report and testifies at trial. This may also involve the use of diagnostic testing to support the expert’s conclusion.
