Pascal Lamothe v. Dajeya Huggins, A-1342-23

Plaintiff Lamothe was rear-ended while waiting in a McDonald's drive-thru by a vehicle driven by underage, unlicensed defendant Huggins, with Forde also a defendant.
Defendants stipulated to liability; the trial concerned the extent of Lamothe’s injuries and damages—including pain, suffering, and lost wages.
Jury awarded $930,500 in damages to Lamothe, later increased with interest to $954,344.07; Byrd was dismissed before trial.
Defense sought a new trial, arguing jury was prejudiced by plaintiff’s behavior during jury selection, improper argument on damages, and testimony about unreported continued medical treatment.
Trial court denied motions for new trial and reconsideration, finding no prejudice or error; defense’s post-verdict certifications were questioned for timing and accuracy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Plaintiff's behavior before jury array	No improper influence or contact.	Plaintiff's conduct (stretching, grimacing) prejudiced jury during selection.	No evidence of prejudicial influence; motion denied.
Use of "accountability" theme at trial	Appropriate to reference responsibility.	Improperly suggested jury should "send a message" or required accountability.	Not plain error; focused only on plaintiff's rights.
Time unit argument in damages	Disclosed in pre-trial submission; complied with court limits.	Lack of notice; improper extrapolation meant defense couldn't address in summation.	Notice adequate; argument was limited; no prejudice.
Testimony on continued/chiropractic treatment	Minimal, inadvertent, and cured by sustained objection.	Prejudicial because not disclosed pre-trial and compounded other issues.	Not prejudicial; objection sustained; no error.
Lost wage claim without expert	Sufficient evidence from testimony & medical records.	Needed expert proof for lost wage calculation.	Expert not required if permanency established.

Caldwell v. Haynes, 136 N.J. 422 (N.J. 1994) (Sets standard for granting a new trial and requirement for damages proof).
Panko v. Flintkote Co., 7 N.J. 55 (N.J. 1951) (Standard for whether extraneous influences on jury require new trial).
Bender v. Adelson, 187 N.J. 411 (N.J. 2006) (Limits of counsel argument in closing and standard for evaluating prejudicial effect).
Feldman v. Lederle Labs., 97 N.J. 429 (N.J. 1984) (Deference to trial judge's 'feel for the case' on motions for new trial).
Jastram v. Kruse, 197 N.J. 216 (N.J. 2008) (Appellate standard for review of new trial motions).
Diakamopoulos v. Monmouth Med. Ctr., 312 N.J. Super. 20 (App. Div. 1998) (Miscarriage of justice under the law for new trial motions).