As I have stated in prior blogs, the owner of a location where an accident occurs is not automatically liable for the accident just because that accident occurred at that location.
Rather, the accident victim and counsel must show that the owner had a duty that the owner breached. One primary duty is to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. The meaning of “reasonably safe” is the subject of myriad New Jersey court decisions.
Our client, a North Carolina resident, was driving on the New Jersey Turnpike in the early morning hours when she was rear-ended by an Alabama driver. She was seriously injured,
and transported to an area hospital where she underwent surgery and received treatment for her injuries. She contacted me from her hospital bed, and I immediately went to the hospital to meet her and to provide her with advice about her rights against the other driver. She retained me to represent her on her personal injury claim.
In a prior blog, we discussed a New Jersey Supreme Court decision barring accident victims from recovering their medical expenses from the negligent driver causing the injury. The plaintiff in that case had chosen a $15,000.00 personal injury protection (PIP) limit on his insurance, and the Court stated that therefore, he was limited to recovering a maximum of $15,000.00 for his medical expenses related to the accident from the other driver’s insurance company, where his expenses were far in excess of that limit and where the other driver was responsible for the accident. We invited the Legislature to step up and right this wrong.
Just because you are injured in an accident does not mean that you will be compensated. Recovery can be complicated if you are claimed to be negligent in connection with the accident. Originally, states used the traditional rule of contributory negligence, which barred recovery if the plaintiff was at all negligent. However, in recent years, many states have modified the rule of contributory negligence to allow recovery even if the plaintiff was negligent. This modern rule is called comparative negligence.
In a recent unreported decision, the New Jersey Appellate Division confirmed that an unlicensed, uninsured accident victim was barred for suing for his pain and suffering and medical expenses arising from his motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff was operating an uninsured, unregistered vehicle owned by his ex-girlfriend who was incarcerated in Texas. He had moved to New Jersey eight months before the accident. He had no valid drivers license or medical insurance coverage.
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.
