BRUCE STEVENS VS. MARY K. GONZALEZ (L-649-13, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1540-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Stevens was injured in a December 15, 2012 head-on collision caused by Gonzalez; underlying action proceeded in Sussex County Superior Court.
- The case fell under AICRA’s verbal threshold; plaintiff needed a permanent injury to recover non-economic damages.
- A directed verdict on liability left damages for jury determination, including permanency of injury.
- Plaintiff alleged permanent injuries; defense contended injuries were non-permanent with preexisting cervical degenerative disease.
- The trial court initially charged the jury on aggravation of a preexisting condition in error, later re-charged correctly after counsel’s prompt; verdict awarded $4,125 for lost wages (non-economic damages not awarded).
- Superior Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial; Stevens appeals claiming reversible error in jury instructions and permanency determinations; the Appellate Division affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the preexisting-condition aggravation instruction reversible error? | Stevens contends the original charge misstated law on aggravation of a preexisting condition. | Gonzalez argues the error was curable and the corrected charge adequately guided the jury. | No reversible error; corrected instruction cured the defect and did not produce an unjust result. |
| Did the erroneous instruction require a new trial given permanency disputes? | A new trial is warranted due to confusion over permanency from the flawed charge. | The permanency issue was dispositive and properly charged; error did not prejudice substantial rights. | Not justified; the correctly charged permanency issue controlled and the error was not reversible. |
| Did the verdict on permanency have sufficient support in the record? | Expert testimony supported permanent injury. | Defendant’s expert disputed permanency; jury could reject permanency. | Verdict supported by the record; jury could reject permanent-injury claims despite expert conflict. |
| Was the appealable order properly reasoned given lack of/insufficient written reasoning? | The trial court failed to state reasons for denying the new trial. | Appellate review permitted independent evaluation of the record; reasons not required for this standard. | affirmed despite lack of detailed reasoning; no miscarriage of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davidson v. Slater, 189 N.J. 166 (2007) (verifies permanency threshold under AICRA)
- City of Long Branch v. Jui Yung Liu, 203 N.J. 464 (2010) (great deference to jury verdict; standard for new-trial review)
- Jastram v. Kruse, 197 N.J. 216 (2008) (standard of review with deference to trial court’s intangibles)
- Reynolds v. Gonzalez, 172 N.J. 266 (2002) (jury charge must be understandable and correctly state the law)
- Mogull v. CB Commercial Real Estate Grp., 162 N.J. 449 (2000) (jury instructions must clearly convey issues; whether error merits reversal)
- Wade v. Kessler Inst., 172 N.J. 327 (2002) (jury charges must spell out legal principles and application)
- Velazquez v. Portadin, 163 N.J. 677 (2000) (clarifies jury instruction requirements)
- Tindal v. Smith, 299 N.J. Super. 123 (1997) (clear but harmless error not reversible when other element supports verdict)
- Conklin v. Hannoch Weisman, P.C., 281 N.J. Super. 448 (1995) (noticeable erroneous charge may be cured if corrected instruction given)
- Amaru v. Stratton, 209 N.J. Super. 1 (1985) (review of new-trial denial for abuse of discretion)