Posted On: April 24, 2011

State Supreme Court OKs NJ as Venue for South African Accident Case

The State Supreme Court recently upheld a lower court decision by ruling that New Jersey was an appropriate venue for hearing a personal injury lawsuit concerning a South African motor vehicle accident involving U.S. citizens. (1)

The accident, which occurred in September 2006 about 75 miles southwest of Johannesburg, involved three U.S. citizens: David Edmonds, an employee of General Dynamics-Ordinance and Tactical Systems, Inc., and resident of Florida; and two New Jersey residents, Amin Yousef and Crane Robinson, both civilian employees of the U.S. Army. According to reports, Edmonds was driving a rented van in which Yousef and Robinson were passengers, when he allegedly ran a stop sign and crashed into another vehicle. (2)

Robinson required surgery in South Africa as a result of the accident and was later treated for leg and neck injuries when he returned to the U.S. Yousef, who was thrown from the vehicle, suffered severe head trauma. He was treated in South Africa for a month before returning to the U.S., where he continued to receive treatment for brain injuries for years. He is now legally blind, suffers cognitive and speech damages and is confined to a wheelchair. (2)

The extent of Yousef’s injuries played a large part in the Court’s ruling that the case could be heard in the U.S. Because Yousef was an employee of the U.S. Army, the case could be heard in any U.S. court. New Jersey was chosen because of his residency. (3)

The State Supreme Court ruled that any interests South Africa may have in the outcome of the trial could be satisfied in New Jersey. The Court further ruled that records of any medical treatment the plaintiffs received while in South Africa could be obtained for use in trial here. On the other hand, the Court noted, the extent of Yousef’s injuries prohibit him from returning to South Africa for a trial. (3)

Another factor considered by the Court was that in South Africa liability cases are considered by a judge instead of a jury, as is done in New Jersey. Should the jury find that the South African municipality where the accident occurred was even partially responsible, it could assign damages to that municipality, decreasing the disadvantages to the defendants in this case. (1)

The trial will be heard in Superior Court in Hackensack. (2)

(1) http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202489645291&NJ_Court_May_Try_Injury_Suit_Arising_From_Auto_Accident_in_South_Africa
(2) http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime_courts/041111_Supreme_Court_Suit_against_Floridian_over_South_Africa_car_crash_belongs_in_Bergen_County.html
(3) http://www.law.com/jsp/law/international/LawArticleIntl.jsp?id=1202474010582

Bookmark and Share

Posted On: April 9, 2011

NJ Teen’s Lawsuit Refuels Debate over Fireworks Sales

A Jackson, NJ, teenager filed a lawsuit late last month in Ocean County Superior Court seeking an undivulged amount of damages in connection with a fireworks mishap that left him partially blind. That lawsuit has refueled a long-lived debate over the legality of selling fireworks to residents of states in which their use is illegal. (1)

Last summer, 19-year-old Thomas Eldershaw agreed to help a friend set off fireworks during a July 4th celebration when one of the explosives miss-fired hitting Eldershaw in the face and eye. Eldershaw suffered facial burns and was left partially blinded as a result of this accident. His lawsuit names the seller of the fireworks -- Sky King Fireworks of Morrisville, PA, the manufacturer of the fireworks and the friend who purchased the fireworks. (2)

New Jersey is one of a few states that continues to ban all consumer fireworks and allows display fireworks only by permit. As a result, the sale, exposure for sale, distribution, possession and use of fireworks within the State is illegal. (3) The neighboring state of Pennsylvania, however, does allow the sale of fireworks to consumers other than Pennsylvania residents. This has allowed for the establishment of so-called “border stores,” which has long been a contention between the two states. (2)

Back in 2006, the NJ State Attorney General’s Office and the Division of Consumer Affairs sued Sky King Fireworks, along with three other Pennsylvania-based companies and one Virginia-based company for advertising and selling fireworks to New Jersey residents. That lawsuit claimed the companies were in violation of New Jersey’s Fireworks Regulation Law, which stipulates that it is “unlawful for any person to offer for sale, sell, possess or use fireworks in New Jersey without a valid permit.” (4)

The most recent lawsuit contends that while Sky King had signed a consent order in connection with the 2006 legal action designed to protect consumers, it has violated that agreement by selling fireworks to Eldershaw’s friend without specifically divulging the illegality of possessing the fireworks. (1)

The ambiguity in the law has caused some lawmakers in both states to take action. Former
New Jersey Sen. Peter Inverso five years ago introduced a resolution asking Pennsylvania to cease fireworks sales to residents of New Jersey. Pennsylvania Rep. John T. Galloway consequently introduced a bill prohibiting out-of-state fireworks sales but that bill has not yet been signed into law. (2)

(1) http://www.app.com/article/20110330/NJNEWS10/110330053/Jackson-teen-injured-
by-fireworks-sues-store-manufacturer

(2) http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2011/03/lawsuit_blames_pennsylvania_fi.html(3) http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lssa/laws/Fireworks_Act__Sale.html
(4) http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases06/pr20060626a.html

Bookmark and Share