Willner v. Vertical Reality, Inc., 192 A.3d 1011

Background

Plaintiff Josh Willner (a camp counselor) was injured when an auto-belay rope lost tension; he sued the camp, Vertical Reality (designer/manufacturer of the wall/system), and Numatics (maker of cylinders/parts) for strict products liability and negligence.
Willner served a single global offer of judgment under R. 4:58 for $125,000 to all defendants; no defendant accepted or counteroffered.
Prior to verdict, claims against Numatics for design defect and failure to warn were dismissed, leaving only a manufacturing-defect claim against Numatics (conduct evidence is generally irrelevant to manufacturing-defect claims).
At trial the jury received a Model Jury Charge-style instruction on manufacturing defect (not the limiting instruction Numatics requested excluding consideration of conduct), found both defendants liable, awarded $358,000, and apportioned 70% to Vertical Reality and 30% to Numatics.
The trial court awarded plaintiff attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest under Rule 4:58; the Appellate Division affirmed as to instructions and sanctions.
The Supreme Court affirmed the jury-instruction ruling (harmless error) but reversed the Rule 4:58 sanctions against Numatics, finding imposition of fees unfair in this procedural posture.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in refusing Numatics' limiting jury instruction excluding conduct evidence after design/failure-to-warn claims dismissed	Willner: instruction unnecessary because conduct evidence was relevant to multiple claims and the charge given accurately explained manufacturing-defect law	Numatics: once non-manufacturing claims were dismissed, conduct evidence was irrelevant and a limiting instruction was required to prevent jury confusion	Court: Numatics preserved the issue by sidebar; review = harmless-error; any error was harmless because judge directed jury away from conduct evidence and model charge properly focused on manufacturing defect
Proper standard of appellate review for unobjected-to jury instruction	Willner: plain-error review applies because no contemporaneous objection was made	Numatics: its written request and post-charge sidebar preserved error for review under harmless-error standard	Court: sidebar colloquy preserved the issue; review under harmless-error; affirmed no reversible error
Whether Rule 4:58 sanctions should be measured against the total jury verdict or a defendant’s molded share when plaintiff makes a single global offer to multiple defendants	Willner: Gonzalez controls; compare plaintiff's full offer to the jury's full verdict	Numatics: sanction should be compared to defendant's allocated share (molded share); awarding fees based on total verdict unfair to individual defendants	Court: Reversed sanctions; holding it is unfair to impose fees on an individual defendant based on total verdict without advance notice and clarity in the rule; Rule 4:58-4 creates ambiguity and fee-shifting would be improper here
Whether prior cases (Wadeer/Gonzalez) require a molded-share comparison in multi-defendant R.4:58 context	Willner/NJAJ: Gonzalez controls — compare total offer to total verdict; Wadeer limited to UM/UIM contexts	Numatics: Wadeer rationale supports comparing to defendant’s proportionate liability	Court: Wadeer/Gonzalez are distinguishable and do not resolve allocation under R.4:58-4; neither compels sanctions here

Key Cases Cited

Panko v. Flintkote Co., 7 N.J. 55 (protection against extraneous influence on jury can require new trial)
Dynasty, Inc. v. Princeton Ins. Co., 165 N.J. 1 (simply suggesting a jury instruction does not preserve an appellate issue)
Myrlak v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 157 N.J. 84 (manufacturing-defect inquiry focuses solely on product condition vs. design specs)
Feldman v. Lederle Labs, 97 N.J. 429 (design-defect and failure-to-warn strict liability theories implicate reasonableness of conduct)
Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Security Corp., 185 N.J. 100 (Rule 4:58 analysis comparing an offer to the jury's full verdict in certain contexts)
Wadeer v. N.J. Manufacturers Ins. Co., 220 N.J. 591 (limitations on using reduced verdicts in R.4:58 comparison; limited to UM/UIM context)
Schettino v. Roizman Dev., Inc., 158 N.J. 476 (plaintiff may make an offer that addresses total judgment against multiple defendants)