Juan Morales-Hurtado v. Abel v. Reinoso (082293) (Bergen County & Statewide)
A-5-19
| N.J. | Apr 16, 2020Background
- Morales-Hurtado sued Reinoso for injuries from a motor-vehicle collision; trial produced a plaintiff verdict adverse to defendant.
- Appellate Division found multiple trial errors (improper remarks, prejudicial questioning, inadmissible technical evidence, improper cross-exam and summation) that, in the aggregate, deprived plaintiff of a fair trial.
- Specific trial problems included defense counsel’s “litigious society” remark, cross-examination about plaintiff’s immigration/citizenship and interpreter use, questions about passengers’ ages and other lawsuits, and a question on why plaintiff’s airbags did not deploy without expert proof.
- Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s exclusion of life‑care planner Dianne Simmons‑Grab and ordered a new trial, but left admissibility questions for the trial court to resolve on remand.
- Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s conclusion that cumulative errors warranted a new trial, and provided gatekeeping guidance under N.J.R.E. 702/703 regarding life‑care experts’ reliance on treating‑physician opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cumulative trial errors — entitlement to new trial | Multiple errors cumulatively deprived Morales‑Hurtado of a fair trial | Errors were harmless; verdict should stand | Affirmed App. Div.: cumulative errors denied a fair trial; new trial ordered |
| Prejudicial remarks/questions ("litigious society", immigration/citizenship, passengers' ages) | Such remarks and questions were irrelevant and appealed to prejudice; plaintiff did not open the door | Defense sought to impeach credibility and show bias or presence of passengers | Improper; App. Div. found questions and remarks unjustified and prejudicial; trial court’s curative steps insufficient |
| Airbag non‑deployment evidence | Plaintiff argued defense lacked admissible basis to challenge significance | Reinoso argued cross‑examination on airbags was proper fact inquiry | App. Div.: evidence about airbags’ failure inadmissible absent expert foundation; potentially misleading |
| Admission of life‑care planner (Simmons‑Grab) | Her life‑care opinion should not have been wholly excluded; questionnaires and records supported her opinion | Trial court excluded her because she relied on uncertified questionnaires and sources that did not show treating doctors’ opinions to a reasonable degree of medical certainty | App. Div. reversed exclusion; Sup. Ct. affirmed reversal but instructed trial court to hold an N.J.R.E. 104(c) hearing and apply N.J.R.E. 702/703; treating‑physician opinions relied upon must be shown to exist and be to reasonable medical certainty |
| Directed verdict on causation | Morales‑Hurtado argued insufficient evidence so directed verdict for defendant should be granted | Reinoso argued jury could reasonably find causation; denial proper | App. Div. and Sup. Ct.: no error in denying directed verdict on causation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sanchez‑Medina, 231 N.J. 452 (discussing prejudice from evidence of undocumented immigration status)
- In re Accutane Litig., 234 N.J. 340 (trial court as gatekeeper for expert testimony; N.J.R.E. 702 analysis)
- Creanga v. Jardal, 185 N.J. 345 (expert opinions must be couched in reasonable medical certainty)
- State v. Freeman, 223 N.J. Super. 92 (same standard: reasonable medical probability for medical opinions)
- Costantino v. Ventriglia, 324 N.J. Super. 437 (permitting vocational expert to rely on medical expert testimony framed as reasonable medical probability)
- Morales‑Hurtado v. Reinoso, 457 N.J. Super. 170 (App. Div. 2018) (comprehensive discussion of trial errors and reversal for new trial)