JOSEPH v. BUCCHI VS. JANEL DELUCA (L-0464-17, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-5672-18T3
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Oct 29, 2020Background:
- On Feb. 11, 2016 Bucchi (plaintiff) engaged in a confrontation with DeLuca after leaving a gas station; he ran alongside her car, fell, and shortly thereafter was struck by Strothers' oncoming vehicle.
- Bucchi suffered facial fractures, a fractured left wrist, and traumatic brain injury; he claimed injuries from the sequence of two closely timed accidents.
- Bucchi sued DeLuca (first incident) and Strothers (second incident); discovery produced three expert reports addressing wrist, head, and psychiatric injuries.
- Trial court initially granted summary judgment to DeLuca on the battery count and denied summary judgment to Strothers, but on reconsideration granted Strothers summary judgment, finding Bucchi failed to allocate injuries to the second accident.
- On appeal the Appellate Division held Bucchi bore some fault and defendants were not entitled to a burden shift to apportion damages, but Bucchi had presented sufficient evidence that his head and related psychological injuries were a unitary harm incapable of apportionment; the court affirmed summary judgment for Strothers as to the wrist only, reversed as to head/psych injuries, and remanded for trial limited to those injuries.
- Bucchi expressly did not appeal the jury verdict in favor of DeLuca; the Appellate Division declined to disturb that judgment.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether burden to apportion damages between successive accidents shifts to defendants | Bucchi: when injuries result from successive close-in-time accidents, burden shifts to tortfeasors to apportion | Strothers: plaintiff must prove allocation; expert failure requires summary judgment | Court: burden does not shift here because Bucchi had fault in both accidents and defendants were not better positioned; but unitary harm exception applies for head/psych injuries |
| Whether summary judgment against Strothers on all injuries was proper given lack of expert allocation | Bucchi: lack of precise allocation does not preclude trial where injuries may be indivisible | Strothers: experts attribute wrist to first accident; no proof ties other injuries to her impact | Court: summary judgment correct as to wrist (no evidence tying wrist to second accident); erroneous as to head/psych injuries (evidence supported unitary harm) |
| Role of jury vs. judge in apportioning damages when multiple causative events exist | Bucchi: jury should determine apportionment among accidents and fault | Strothers: (argued summary judgment instead) | Court: if jury finds Strothers negligent and plaintiff ≤50% at fault, trial court must decide whether jury can apportion; if not, judge will apportion equally among causative events per Campione |
| Whether appeal may seek a new trial against both defendants when Bucchi expressly did not appeal DeLuca verdict | Bucchi: requests new trial if Strothers' summary judgment reversed | DeLuca: judgment final and not appealed | Court: Bucchi waived challenge to DeLuca by excluding that verdict from his notice of appeal; cannot obtain reversal of DeLuca judgment here |
Key Cases Cited
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (standard for summary judgment review)
- Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469 (2016) (appellate review of summary judgment under Rule 4:46-2)
- Campione v. Soden, 150 N.J. 163 (1997) (successive-accident apportionment rules after Comparative Negligence Act)
- Reichert v. Vegholm, 366 N.J. Super. 209 (App. Div. 2004) (factors for shifting burden to defendants and unitary-harm discussion)
- Hill v. Macomber, 103 N.J. Super. 127 (App. Div. 1968) (older precedent imposing joint-and-several liability for rapid succession collisions)
- Feldman v. Lederle Labs., 257 N.J. Super. 13 (App. Div. 1992) (unitary harm concept where apportionment is impracticable)