Torres v. Pabon(074307), 137 A.3d 502

Pabon, driving Suburban Disposal’s truck, left rear lights obscured by debris; plaintiff collided with truck on Route 46 in Fairfield during a left merge.
Plaintiff alleged negligence by Pabon and Suburban; comparative negligence defense asserted by defendants.
Pabon was absent for trial; plaintiff sought to bar testimony and extend discovery, which the court initially denied.
Plaintiff read portions of Pabon’s deposition and later timely but improperly served requests for admissions about Dr. Helbig’s opinions; responses were not yet due.
Trial court allowed reading of admissions and Pabon’s deposition; defendant called no fact witnesses; jury found both sides negligent with 55% fault to defendants and $4.5 million in damages, later molded to $2.735 million.
Appellate Division affirmed; Supreme Court reversed, finding cumulative error from five improper rulings requiring a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether adverse-inference Clawans charge was proper	Pabon’s absence justified Clawans; deposition used in trial supported inference.	Hill four-factor test not satisfied; misused deposition evidence and prejudicial.	Clawans adverse-inference charge improper; cumulative error requires new trial.
Whether reading untimely requests for admissions about Helbig was erroneous	Requests clarified issues; no prejudice; allowed to read them.	Requests untimely and improper under Rule 4:22-1; no admissible basis.	Abuse of discretion; improper to read admissions; requires new trial.
Whether Clawans charge related to Helbig was proper	Helbig’s absence could justify inference against defendants.	Expert is not a fact witness; Hill factors not met; improper.	Clawans charge improper; should have been denied.
Whether jury instruction on following at safe distance errored	Model charge misidentified the party responsible; facts show plaintiff’s duty conflicted with charge.	Charge is a semantic error; did not misstate law.	Charge was confusing and erroneous; required correction on liability issue.
Whether failure to instruct about non-recoverability of medical expenses under AICRA affected damages	Medical-expenses testimony should be admissible; no instruction needed if not claimed.	AICRA bars speculation about medical expense benefits; model charge required.	Court erred by not instructing not to include medical expenses in damages; cumulative error.

State v. Clawans, 38 N.J. 162 (N.J. 1962) (adverse inference against uncalled witness; four-factor Hill test later guidance)
State v. Hill, 199 N.J. 545 (N.J. 2009) (four-pronged Hill factors for adverse-inference due to missing witness)
Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2 (N.J. 1969) (driver duty to follow at safe distance; incorporation of standard into statute)
Espinal v. Arias, 391 N.J. Super. 49 (App. Div. 2007) (need for model medical-expenses instruction when none claimed)
Pellicer v. St. Barnabas Hosp., 200 N.J. 22 (N.J. 2009) (cumulative-error framework for reviewing multiple errors)
Jenewicz, 193 N.J. 473 (N.J. 2021) (cumulative error can warrant reversal even if individual errors are not reversible)
Washington v. Perez, 219 N.J. 338 (N.J. 2014) (expert-witness considerations in Clawans context)
Meistrich v. Casino Arena Attractions, Inc., 54 N.J. Super. 25 (App. Div. 1959) (related to adverse witness doctrine and admissibility)
O'Neil v. Bilotta, 18 N.J. Super. 85 (App. Div. 1952) (early adverse-witness discussion context)
Clifford v. Opdyke, 156 N.J. Super. 208 (App. Div. 1978) (AICRA-related guidance on medical expenses)
Espinal v. Arias, 391 N.J. Super. 49 (App. Div. 2007) (AICRA-related damages instruction considerations)