Jesse L. Mickens, Jr. v. Timothy S. Misdom and City of Elizabeth, 105 A.3d 1163

On Jan. 8, 2010 Jesse L. Mickens Jr. was struck while seated in his parked car by a City of Elizabeth pickup driven by Timothy Misdom; parties stipulated liability.
Photographs showed only modest vehicle damage; plaintiff initially declined treatment but later underwent ER care, chiropractic treatment, MRI (showing L4-5 herniation), and lumbar discectomy on Aug. 5, 2010.
Plaintiff, then ~40, returned to physically demanding warehouse work after a month off, but testified to persistent pain, functional limits, and reduced enjoyment of life three years post-surgery.
Defense experts (a biomechanical engineer and an orthopedic surgeon) disputed causation, opining the collision was minor and unlikely to have caused the herniation; plaintiff’s neurosurgeon linked the impact to a progressive herniation.
A jury found a permanent injury (per N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d)) and awarded $2,400,000 for pain, suffering, disability, impairment and loss of enjoyment of life; the trial judge denied defendants’ motion for a new trial or remittitur.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury instruction on pre-existing condition was erroneous	Mickens argued the instruction was appropriate given defense cross-examination about prior activities	Defendants argued the instruction was improper and prejudicial	Court found insufficient merit in defendants’ claim and affirmed the instruction (affirmed on trial judge’s reasoning)
Whether $2.4M verdict was grossly excessive and shocks the conscience (remittitur/new trial)	Mickens argued the award reflected credible testimony, permanent injury, and jury discretion to make him whole	Defendants argued the award was so disproportionate to the injury and comparable verdicts that it amounted to a miscarriage of justice	Court held the award, though high, was not shocking to the judicial conscience; affirmed denial of remittitur/new trial, deferring to jury and trial judge’s "feel of the case"
Whether jury’s finding of substantial permanent injury was against the weight of the evidence	Mickens maintained ample evidence (MRI, surgeon testimony, ongoing limitations) supported permanence	Defendants contended causation and permanence were unsupported and contradicted by experts	Court rejected defendants’ weight-of-evidence challenge (not preserved properly and substantial evidence supported the verdict)

He v. Miller, 207 N.J. 230 (discusses remittitur standards, deference to jury, and trial judge’s “feel of the case")
Baxter v. Fairmont Food Co., 74 N.J. 588 (articulates standard that verdicts should not be disturbed unless they "shock the conscience")
Johnson v. Scaccetti, 192 N.J. 256 (addresses deference to jury verdicts and appellate review of remittitur)
Fertile v. St. Michael's Med. Ctr., 169 N.J. 481 (trial judge must explain how remitted amount is derived from the record)
DeHanes v. Rothman, 158 N.J. 90 (discusses juror composition and relevance to "feel of the case")