JOSH WILLNER VS. VERTICAL REALITY(L-163-08, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3870-13T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 5, 2017Background
- On July 19, 2006, 16-year-old Josh Willner fell from a mobile auto-belaying rock wall at Ivy League Day Camp after hydraulic cylinders failed, fracturing his ankle. The failure was traced to cracked cast aluminum retainers in the cylinder rod ends that allowed loss of hydraulic fluid and cable tension.
- Plaintiffs (Willner and his parents) sued Vertical Reality (manufacturer/integrator of the rock wall) and Numatics (manufacturer of the cylinders) alleging design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn.
- At an 11-day jury trial, the jury found: Vertical Reality liable for design defect and inadequate warnings (70%); Numatics liable for a manufacturing defect in the retainers (30%); damages awarded for medical expenses and pain and suffering totaling $358,000.
- Judge granted plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs under Rule 4:58 (offer of judgment) after plaintiff’s $125,000 offer was rejected.
- Numatics appealed denial of directed verdict/JNOV on manufacturing-defect claim, asserted prejudicial focus on its conduct and instructional error, and challenged the award of fees under the offer-of-judgment rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support manufacturing-defect verdict against Numatics | Evidence (expert and physical exam) showed voids/porosity in cast retainers that broke and caused cylinder failure, so product came off line in substandard condition | No evidence of deviation from Numatics’ specifications or that porosity caused the failure; expert tests showed retainers met performance standards | Affirmed: reasonable minds could differ; ample evidence of defective cast retainers and causation supported jury verdict |
| Use of conduct evidence and need for limiting instruction re: negligence | Conduct evidence was relevant to design/failure-to-warn theories and to show knowledge and causation | Evidence and summation improperly focused jury on Numatics’ conduct (negligence) for manufacturing defect and should have been limited/instructed | No plain error: trial court instructed on manufacturing-defect law, sustained objections, gave curative instruction, and did not err in declining an unrequested limiting instruction earlier |
| Jury confusion about allocating fault if manufacturing defect not found | N/A (plaintiffs relied on verdict form and instructions) | Jury confusion caused by lack of requested charge on conduct led to inconsistent allocation | Not error: judge answered jury question clearly that no defect = no percentage of fault; post-deliberation instruction was accurate and dispositive |
| Offer-of-judgment sanctions (attorney fees/costs) — whether molded or allocated share controls | Plaintiff argued Rule 4:58 applies because verdict exceeded 120% of $125,000 offer; sanctions appropriate | Numatics argued its pro rata share ($107,400) did not exceed 120% threshold and thus fees should not apply to Numatics | Affirmed: review refused an unpreserved apportionment argument; precedent treats jury verdict as trigger for Rule 4:58 and judge properly awarded fees; Wadeer did not abrogate Gonzalez principle |
Key Cases Cited
- Frugis v. Bracigliano, 177 N.J. 250 (2003) (standard of review for motions for directed verdict and JNOV)
- Myrlak v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 157 N.J. 84 (1999) (definition of product defect; manufacturing defect arises when unit departs from manufacturer's own standards)
- Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & Mach. Co., 81 N.J. 150 (1979) (examples and nature of manufacturing defects)
- Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Sec. Corp., 185 N.J. 100 (2005) (offer-of-judgment rule compares plaintiff's offer to jury verdict amount for triggering sanctions)
- Wadeer v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 220 N.J. 591 (2015) (discussing molded judgments and Rule 4:58-2 in UM/UIM context; court acknowledged ambiguity but did not overrule Gonzalez)