Donna Rowe v. Bell & Gossett Company(081602)(Middlesex County and Statewide)
239 N.J. 531
| N.J. | 2019Background:
- Ronald and Donna Rowe sued multiple defendants for asbestos-related mesothelioma; eight defendants settled before trial and Hilco/Universal was the sole remaining defendant at trial.
- Universal sought to admit excerpts of the settling defendants’ certified answers to interrogatories and corporate-representative deposition testimony as evidence to allocate fault to those settling defendants.
- Trial court admitted interrogatory answers and portions of six corporate-representative depositions, excluded other portions, and allowed the jury to consider apportioning fault to the settlers.
- The jury found for the Rowes, allocated only 20% fault to Universal and apportioned the remainder among the eight settling defendants, reducing plaintiffs’ recovery accordingly.
- The Appellate Division reversed, holding the disputed discovery materials were inadmissible under the Rules of Evidence; the Supreme Court granted certification.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court held the disputed excerpts were admissible as statements against interest under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25) and reinstated the trial court judgment.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25) (statement against interest) | Rowe: statements were not sufficiently self-inculpatory or were only one piece of larger proof; thus not admissible under 803(c)(25). | Universal: interrogatory answers and corporate-designee testimony were adverse to the settling corporations’ pecuniary/proprietary interests and tended to subject them to civil liability. | Held: admissible under 803(c)(25); statements were against each settling defendant’s interest (successor status, product-content, warnings) when made. |
| Admissibility under N.J.R.E. 804(b)(1) (prior testimony/unavailability) | Rowe: Universal did not prove declarants were unavailable; 804(b)(1) inapplicable. | Universal: corporate designees for six out-of-state settlers were unavailable; prior testimony admissible. | Court did not decide 804(b)(1); admitted evidence on 803(c)(25) grounds and did not reach 804(b)(1). |
| Admissibility under N.J.R.E. 803(b)(1) / Rule 4:16-1 (party-opponent/prior discovery) | Rowe: statements were offered against plaintiffs (not against the settling defendants who made them), so 803(b)(1) and Rule 4:16-1 do not apply. | Universal: crossclaims and notices in lieu of subpoena supported treating the answers/testimony as party statements. | Court declined to reach 803(b)(1) or Rule 4:16-1(b); admissibility sustained on 803(c)(25) alone. |
| Prima facie proof required to submit apportionment to jury | Rowe: without the settlers’ discovery admissions, Universal failed to present prima facie evidence to warrant allocation. | Universal: evidence (plaintiff’s testimony, expert, and settling-defendant statements) sufficed to present apportionment to jury. | Court: issue of sufficiency was not before it (plaintiff did not cross-petition); trial court properly allowed Universal to present proofs and jury acted as factfinder. |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Latta, 123 N.J. 584 (1991) (a non-settling defendant may seek allocation to a settling defendant; requires fair and timely notice)
- Krzykalski v. Tindall, 232 N.J. 525 (2018) (explains Comparative Negligence Act and Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law framework for apportionment)
- Cartel Capital Corp. v. Fireco of N.J., 81 N.J. 548 (1980) (trial court molds judgment to credit allocation to settling defendants)
- Judson v. Peoples Bank & Tr. Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67 (1954) (historical context for contribution and allocation principles)
- State v. Brown, 170 N.J. 138 (2001) (discusses rationale and standard for admitting statements against interest under the rules of evidence)
- State v. White, 158 N.J. 230 (1999) (addresses hearsay exceptions and indicia of reliability)