Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Frederick Voss was injured when his motorcycle collided with a vehicle operated by Defendant Kristoffe Tranquilino. Plaintiff alleged that prior to the accident, he was a dining at Tiffany's (a restaurant) and was negligently served alcoholic beverages that contributed to the accident and caused his injuries. Plaintiff was charged with DWI and subsequently pled guilty to the charge. Plaintiff sued Tiffany's. Tiffany's moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the state "Dram Shop Act" barred Plaintiff from bringing suit because he pled guilty to DWI. Tiffany's lost at trial, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, including the legislative history of the Dram Shop Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Court, in quoting the appellate panel, found that "immunizing liquor licensees from liability in such circumstances would me inimical to the State's police of curbing drunk driving."

In 2001, Petitioner Police Officer Gregory Russo and his partner responded to a house fire. Officer Russo went into the burning structure, located an adult and two children trapped inside and saved them. The officer heard cries for help on the second floor, and went back inside to try to find more persons trapped by the fire. When inside, the intense heat and smoke overwhelmed him. Firefighters escorted the officer from the burning building, but not before the person who had cried out for help had died. Outside, the officer received first aid, and witnessed firefighters remove the victim from the burning building. Firefighters laid the victimâs body on the lawn in front of Officer Russo. The family blamed the officer for the victimâs death. The officer later reported he had trouble sleeping, stomach disorders, suicidal thoughts and depression. Eventually the officer would be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Officer Russo applied for âaccidentalâ disability retirement benefits in 2004. The Police & Firemanâs Retirement System Board of Trustees had an expert evaluate Officer Russo. He would be classified as âtotally and permanently disabledâ as a result of the fire in 2001. The Board, however, denied Officer Russoâs claim, and granted him an âordinaryâ disability pension. The Officer appealed, and a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). While the ALJâs decision was pending, the Supreme Court decided âPatterson v. Board of Trustees, State Police Retirement System,â which addressed the applicable standards to determining accidental disability pensions. The ALJ concluded that Officer Russo was eligible for an accidental disability pension. The Board adopted the ALJâs findings, but rejected the decision. The appellate court upheld the Boardâs conclusion that Officer Russo did not qualify for accidental disability benefits. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the officer was improperly denied accidental disability benefits for his injury because both the Board and appellate court misapplied the standards set out in its decision in the âPattersonâ case. The Court reversed the appeals courtâs decision and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings.

Plaintiff Ming Yu He was in an automobile accident with Defendant Enilma Miller. A jury found Defendant was negligent, and awarded Plaintiff $1.7 million for pain, suffering, injury, and loss of consortium. Defendant moved for a new trial or remittitur. The trial court granted the remittitur and reduced the money award to approximately $1.5 million. The court concluded that Plaintiff did not appear to be affected by her injuries at trial, and because she decided against surgery on her spine, and she was still able to drive a motor vehicle, she was not as injured as the juryâs original award would suggest. The appellate court reversed the trial courtâs decision. The Supreme Court summarily reversed part and remanded part of the case to the trial court, ordering the trial court to perform a factual analysis of how the award in Plaintiffâs case compared to similar awards given in New Jersey. On remand, the trial court noted that it had never seen such high damages in similar cases, and that his observations of Plaintiff during trial supported the remittitur. The appellate court again reversed the trial courtâs decision, concluding that the record fell short of what remittitur required. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court, and reversed, finding that the trial court provided a sufficient explanation for remititur and that the record supported its decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial courtâs remittitur.