New Jersey Injury Lawyers Blog

Earlier this month the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a divisive ruling that, in effect, allows drivers convicted of driving under the influence to sue the bars that served them. (1)

The split decision (5-2) relates to a 2009 lawsuit filed by Frederick Voss against Tiffany’s Restaurant, Toms River, NJ. According to that suit Mr. Voss, who was driving a motorcycle, was involved in an accident after he had been drinking at the restaurant. Voss, who had a reported blood alcohol level of 0.196, pleaded guilty to driving under the influence. The legal alcohol limit in New Jersey is 0.08. (1)

Although he pleaded guilty to the DUI, Voss sued the owner and driver of the car that hit him, as well as the restaurant for continuing to serve him even though he clearly was intoxicated. An Ocean County Superior Court judge dismissed the actions against the car’s driver and owner citing a 1997 statute that prohibits anyone convicted of drunk driving from suing for damages. The judge, however, allowed the action against the restaurant citing the State’s dram shop laws, which were adopted some ten years earlier. (2)

Dram shop laws (so named from the colonial era practice of serving alcohol by units of liquid measure) state that servers and the owners of establishments that serve alcohol can be held financially responsible for injuries or property damages caused by an intoxicated customer’s action, including drunk driving. (3)

At issue in this case is whether the 1997 statute repeals the older dram shop laws. The majority Supreme Court decision claims it does not, noting that both aim to reduce the incidents of drunk driving.

Under the 1997 statute, injured drunk drivers are denied the right to sue for insurance coverage of their injuries – a measure designed to deter drunk driving under automobile insurance reform. The dram shop laws also act as a deterrent by holding liquor establishments accountable for the actions of their patrons whose judgment may be impaired due to their alcohol consumption. (2)

Two dissenting justices stated that the 1997 statute clearly bans drunk drivers from suing anyone in connection with accidents they may have as a result of their drinking. The majority opinion, however, contends that the 1997 statute pertains only to automobile insurance matters and was not intended to supersede the dram shop laws. (2)

(1) http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime_courts/crime_courts_news/NJ_court_Drunk_driver_can_sue_bar_that_served_him.html
(2) http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202495836070&rss=nj&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
(3) http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-dram-shop.html

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

Almost two years after a Continental plane crashed into a home near Buffalo, N.Y., lawyers have gone to court to discuss a number of wrongful death lawsuits still pending in connection with the case, according to recent reports. (1)

A total of 43 lawsuits have been filed claiming wrongful death in connection with the February 12, 2009, crash, including one by the parents of a 24-year-old Parsippany woman, Madeline Loftus, who was among those killed in the accident. (2)

Fifty people were killed when Continental Connection Flight 3407 crashed into a home in Clarence, N.Y., which is about 20 miles from the Buffalo airport – the plane’s final destination. The victims included all 49 people aboard the plane, about 11 of whom were from New Jersey, and the home’s owner. (2)

Named in the lawsuits are Continental Airlines; Colgan Air, which operated the plane through a joint-operating agreement with Continental; Pinnacle Airlines, parent of Colgan; and Bombardier Inc., the company that manufactured the airplane. (1)

While the companies involved claim no responsibility for the crash, an investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board points to pilot error as the cause. The investigation revealed that the plane’s pilot did not have sufficient training on a particular safety device that was critical in the final moments of the flight. (2)

To date, settlement has been reached in about ten of the wrongful death lawsuits filed in connection with this crash. Those remaining cases that have not reached a settlement as yet are scheduled to go to trial in March 2012. (1)

“Wrongful death” is defined as a death resulting from misconduct by, or negligence of, a company or an individual. Who can be considered “survivors” and the type of compensation for which they can sue depends on specific state law. Generally, however, survivors of victims of wrongful death can sue for general and punitive damages; loss of companionship, protection and care; loss of benefits, such as pension, 401K, and medical insurance; loss of future earnings of the victim; pain and suffering caused by the death of the victim; and expenses incurred in that death, including medical and funeral expenses. (3)

(1) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/dozens_of_lawsuits_are_pending.html

(2) http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime_courts/101448409_Parents_sue_airlines_over_death__of_Parsippany_woman_in_crash.html

(3) http://www.newjerseywrongfuldeath.com/faqs.cfm

The State does not look lightly on false advertising and other misleading business practices as at least one New Jersey used car dealer learned recently.

Although it did not admit to any wrongdoing, Global Auto, Inc., based in Elizabeth, NJ, agreed to pay a $140,000 settlement to resolve a lawsuit brought against it by the State’s Attorney General and the Division of Consumer Affairs alleging misleading business practices. (1)

The lawsuit, filed a year ago, alleges that Global Auto, Inc., also known as Auto Collection Group, violated the State’s consumer protection regulations and laws. Among those violations were:

• bait and switch advertising, in which vehicle prices were misrepresented in order to draw customers;

• not fulfilling promises to pay off loans on vehicles accepted for trade;

• providing false information to loan companies in order to get financing for customers;

• having customers sign blank papers to facilitate the sale;

• failing to reveal to consumers accurate damage information on the vehicles being purchased; and

• inappropriately combining the paperwork on sales with an out-of-state dealership. (2)

The settlement amount includes $16,537, which will be paid as restitution to seven customers. Of the remaining amount, $86,462 covers civil penalties and $37,000 covers investigative costs and attorneys’ fees. (1) The settlement stipulates that $50,000 of the penalties amount will be suspended for a year. However, that amount will be payable immediately if the company fails to make restitution to its customers within 75 days and/or if the company does not follow certain business practices imposed by the agreement. If all requirements are met, including restitution payments, the $50,000 in penalties will be waived. (3)

Among the business practices Global must adapt are honoring the advertised price of its vehicles; not providing misleading information to lending institutions regarding customer information; paying off all balances on vehicles accepted as trade-ins when agreed upon; carrying out a search of a vehicle’s background through a service such as CARFAX and disclosing that information to the consumer. (1)

Global Auto, Inc. and Global Auto Mall in North Plainfield, NJ, are not associated.

(1) http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/press/elizcardeal113010.htm

(2) http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/230037-auto-dealer-setles-with-new-jersey

(3) http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/elizabeth-used-car-dealer-agrees-to-pay-former-customers-state-140000-for-improper-business-practices

Even though New Jersey is an “at will” employment state, the New Jersey State Supreme Court this past summer ruled that failure to renew a contract because of age is against the New Jersey’s Anti-Discrimination Law. (1)

The case involved Rose Nini, a former dean at Mercer County Community College, who claimed the College refused to renew her contract because of her age – 73. Nini had worked at the College for a total of 26 years under several contracts. In the spring of 2005, the College announced it would not renew her contract. (2) According to Nini, this was solely due to her age. The school, however, contended that since Nini was an “at will” employee, they acted within their rights in choosing not to renew her contract. (1)

“At will” employment basically means that employees have the right to resign from a job for any reason and employers have the right to terminate employees for any reason provided, of course, those reasons do not violate other rights protected under state or federal law. (3)

Nini filed suit against the College in September 2005. In the suit she alleged that the College’s former president let her know he did not believe she should be working at her age. The trial court decided that, because Nini’s employment was contractual, the New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination did not protect her. According to the court, Nini was not terminated; she just wasn’t rehired. (1)

The case was later appealed and the trial court’s decision was overturned. The matter was then brought to the State Supreme Court. In the meantime, Nini and the College reached an agreement and asked that the case be dropped. The Court, however, recognizing the extent of public interest in the case, ruled on the matter anyway. (4)

In its ruling, the State Supreme Court found that while employers do have the right to refuse to hire people over 70 years of age that exception applies only to new hires. The court’s ruling made it clear that refusing to renew contracts because of an employee’s age is discriminatory. (1)

(1) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/nj_supreme_court_rules_refusal.html

(2) http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/nj-supreme-court-rules-against-mercer-county-community-college-on-age-discrimination-case

(3) http://employeeissues.com/wrongful_termination.htm

(4) http://chronical.com/blogPost/NJ-Supreme-Court-Sides-With/24461/

Bullying among adolescents is serious behavior that requires serious attention. This was confirmed recently by the State Division on Civil Rights.

Reports on August 31 stated the Division found sufficient evidence to indicate that the Old Bridge Township Board of Education failed to take adequate action to stop reported incidents of bullying at its Jonas Salk Middle School and that the mother of the victim of that bullying may continue her suit against the Board. (1)

The mother’s complaint alleges her son was harassed by other students because of his religious affiliation and what they perceived to be his sexual preference. About 11 individual incidents involving 14 students reportedly occurred against the boy between September 2006 and January 2007. No disciplinary action was taken in two of the incidents because of insufficient information, but the school did dole out punishments ranging from warnings to in-school suspensions in the other incidents. Because these punishments did not stop the bullying, the Division determined the Board had not done enough. (1)

In 2007 the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled schools had an obligation to provide safe and non-hostile environments for their students, much like companies have the obligation to provide such workplaces for their employees. This decision was in response to a Toms River, NJ, case in which a student sued the school district, claiming he was bullied to the extent he had to change schools. The disciplinary action the school took in that case also failed to stop the harassment. (2)

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, schools followed guidelines set in Title IX Amendment of the Federal Education Law, which put the onus on the complainant to prove the seriousness of the harassment and that the actions were intentionally ignored by the specific school board. Responding to the Toms River suit, the Division on Civil Rights determined that the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) applied in that situation and the State Supreme Court agreed. (3)
Under LAD, a case can be made against a school district when the district knows about the harassment but does not take quick and effective action to stop it. The court wanted school districts to address the school environment on the whole and not just address case-by-case issues. (3)

In Old Bridge Township, the Division found the school addressed only the individual incidents and did not take proactive measures to prevent this behavior school-wide. (1)

(1) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/bullying_lawsuit_against_old_b.html

(2) http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/new-jersey-supreme-court-rules-schools-must-protect-students-bias-based-bullyin

(3) http://www.law.com/jsdp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1172570588274

On Friday, August 20, the State Appellate Division upheld an earlier jury verdict awarding $7 million to a woman who claimed she contracted peritoneal mesothelioma by washing her husband’s work clothes. (1)

Both Bonnie and John Anderson worked for the Exxon Bayway Refinery in Linden, NJ, for a number of years; she as an electrician and he as a repairman, working on pumps, filters and pipes. While Bonnie Anderson’s job did not put her in direct contact with asbestos insulation, John Anderson’s did. When he first started working at the refinery, John had to remove the insulation from the pipes he was repairing. (2)

Continue reading "$7 Million Verdict in Mesothelioma Case Upheld by NJ Appellate Court" »

What happens when reality TV drags innocent bystanders into its plot? In the case of MTV’s popular “Jersey Shore” that technique seems to draw lawsuits.

Earlier this month, an Illinois woman sued MTV alleging she had been assaulted by two of the show’s cast members during taping of the show in Miami this past May. MTV, Viacom, Inc., the show’s producer, and Nicole Polizzi (aka “Snooki”) and Jenni Farley (aka “JWowww”), two cast members, were named in the suit which alleges:

Continue reading "Lawsuits suggest “Jersey Shore” Has Taken Reality Too Far" »