JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY VS. HAROLD A.PONTECORVO(L-3553-11, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-5620-14T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- On Nov. 15, 2009 defendant Harold Pontecorvo backed his Hapco Fence Contractors Jeep into a Jersey Central Power & Light (JCP&L) junction pole, left the scene, and later returned home without reporting it. An anonymous caller alerted police.
- Police and JCP&L personnel responded that night; photos showed a leaning, cracked pole and vehicle damage. JCP&L later installed and latched a new pole to the old one and ultimately replaced the old pole.
- JCP&L sought $24,768.67 from defendant for replacement costs (labor, equipment, materials, contractors). JCP&L conceded liability/negligence at trial; the jury was told defendant was negligent and tasked only with causation and damages.
- JCP&L witnesses testified replacement was necessary; cross-examination revealed gaps: JCP&L did not inspect the pole until ten months after the accident, could not explain certain invoiced items, and relied on computerized billing. Defendant testified the pole was already old/leaning and unchanged by the collision.
- The jury returned a no-cause-of-action verdict. The trial court denied JCP&L’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. JCP&L appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / proximate cause | JCP&L: proof showed defendant’s negligence proximately caused damage requiring replacement; directed verdict or JNOV should be granted | Pontecorvo: evidence showed the pole’s preexisting condition or later deterioration caused replacement; causation and extent of damage disputed | Denied JNOV; court found competing, credibility-dependent evidence on causation and necessity of replacement — reasonable minds could differ |
| Weight of the evidence / new trial | JCP&L: verdict was against weight of evidence and a new trial is warranted | Pontecorvo: jury credibility determinations supported the verdict; no miscarriage of justice | New trial denied; appellate court defers to jury on credibility and finds no manifest denial of justice |
| Verdict sheet / burden of proof | JCP&L: jury interrogatory improperly required proof that replacement was necessary, improperly raising plaintiff’s burden | Pontecorvo: verdict questions matched the theory and charge; no objection at trial; no reversible error | No plain error. Jury charge and verdict form, read in context, properly conveyed the law; plaintiff invited the instruction by failing to object |
| Evidentiary rulings (insurance, prior pole condition) | JCP&L: court erred by excluding questioning about defendant’s lack of insurance and by admitting his testimony about pre-accident pole condition | Pontecorvo: insurance evidence irrelevant to liability (which was conceded) and prejudicial; lay testimony about observed condition was admissible under N.J.R.E. 701/602 | No abuse of discretion. Insurance excluded as unduly prejudicial; defendant’s observations about the pole were relevant lay testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Frugis v. Bracigliano, 177 N.J. 250 (standard for reviewing directed verdict/JNOV)
- Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2 (test for whether evidence exists to defeat directed verdict)
- N.J. Power & Light Co. v. Mabee, 41 N.J. 439 (utility replacement-cost measure of damages discussion)
- Conklin v. Hannoch Weisman, 145 N.J. 395 (definition of proximate cause)
- Risko v. Thompson Muller Auto. Grp., Inc., 206 N.J. 506 (deference to jury verdicts and new-trial standard)