X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3 No. 139 – JULY 26, 1995 STATE COURT CASES INSURANCE 23-2-6246 Frieda Hamilton v. Govt. Employees Ins. Co., App. Div. (8 pp.) Trial judge erred in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer and holding that New York-issued automobile insurance policy does not cover plaintiff for claims she is making against her husband based on a New Jersey accident, since N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 mandates coverage for any person,” not just New Jersey residents, and supersedes the policy’s exclusion of suits against a spouse; in addition, although New York law does not allow interspousal personal injury claims, when N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 applies, there is no choice-of-law issue. [Approved for publication July 26, 1995.] INSURANCE — VERBAL THRESHOLD 23-2-6247 Kathleen Stratton v. Hide Naternicola, App. Div. (4 pp.) Judge improperly granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s case–on the basis that there was no medical evidence that the accident and the injury were causally related–since more than one medical report showed that it was the accident trauma that caused plaintiff’s knee problems, which, in turn, forced significant restriction of her life activities, and, further, the motion was premature, since plaintiff has had knee surgery and her future range of motion cannot be determined until the healing process is complete. NEGLIGENCE 31-2-6248 Phillip Sanger v. Edward C. Spahr, et al., App. Div. (15 pp.) In a case where prisoner in transport was injured when police vehicle was involved in an accident, jury verdict including finding that patrolman was negligent but that the negligence was not the cause of prisoner’s blindness, was sustainable on the evidence and is affirmed. PRODUCT LIABILITY 32-1-6249 John Anzalone v. Westech Gear Corp., et al., Supreme Ct. (34 pp.) An equally divided Court found that where a civilian Navy employee was injured on a tanker when a part of a machine severed his hand, since the government specifications–according to which the machine was designed, manufactured, and supplied–did not impose requirements that would conflict with the contractor’ duty under state law to provide a product that incorporated a safety feature, the government contractor defense is inapplicable as a bar to the manufacturer’s liability. [Includes concurring and dissenting opinions.] CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — DEATH PENALTY 14-1-6250 State v. Anthony DiFrisco, Supreme Ct. (136 pp.) Since defendant failed in bearing his burden of showing that his death sentence was disproportionate, and has not demonstrated any aberration in the result of his penalty trial, his death sentence is affirmed. [Includes two dissents.] CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — HARASSMENT 14-2-6251 State v. Stanley Ogonowski, App. Div. (5 pp.) Defendant’s conviction of petty disorderly persons offense of harassment is reversed, since a repeated course of conduct is a prerequisite to a finding of guilt under the statute, and, despite the fact that defendant uttered vile, offensive epithets to complainant, the communication was a singular event, with no prior contact and no evidence that the conduct would recur. A

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.