CLOSEClose Law.com Menu
 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4, No. 211 — November 1, 1996 STATE COURT CASES CONTRACTS — CAR REPAIR 11-2-0436 Evelyn N. Bonda v. Kenneth Fairgrieve-Foreign Car Service, App. Div. (2 pp.) Where plaintiff sued for damages for “excessive services” rendered to her car by defendant during the car’s 60,000 mile servicing, and plaintiff’s own expert’s testimony supported defendant’s position as to the reasonableness of the services rendered, $35 judgment in plaintiff’s favor is affirmed. CONTRACTS — CONVERSION 11-2-0437 Lucille Joyner v. Robert F. Henn, App. Div. (5 pp.) In a case where plaintiff gave defendant certain computer equipment to evaluate with regard to its usefulness, although there is no question that defendant’s failure to return the equipment was wrongful, the record does not support the damages award, and the judgment is reversed. FAMILY LAW — DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 20-2-0438 T.N. v. D.B.N., App. Div. (4 pp.) As a matter of law, defendant’s bare admission that she broke a window did not establish domestic violence, and the judge erred in not conducting a hearing, notwithstanding the statements of counsel that defendant consented to proceed without one. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 25-2-0439 Joseph M. Bair v. Bd. of Review, App. Div. (6 pp.) Although appellant did not earn any money in operating his home brew supply shop after he left his job as an office assistant at Princeton University, this did not mean that he was “available for work,” since he spent all his time at his place of self-employment, and he was properly denied benefits. 25-2-0440 Robert J. Stia, Jr. v. Bd. of Review, et al., App. Div. (3 pp.) Where worker left job since he was dissatisfied with both having to pay for the expenses related to driving between job sites and not having received any bonuses, he was properly disqualified from receipt of unemployment benefits due to the voluntary nature of his leaving the job, since the employment agreement contained no specific date for payment of bonuses and contained no provision for reimbursement of car expenses. 25-2-0441 Abdul Hameed J. Mirza v. Bd. of Review, App. Div. (3 pp.) Appellant — who, after being laid off in a reorganization, then took a part-time consulting job with his former employer — was properly found ineligible for benefits because he was required to be at the plant during hours when he might otherwise seek employment elsewhere, and was therefore not “available” nor “actively seeking” work. TRANSPORTATION — LEASES — INDEMNIFICATION 49-2-0442 Christopher Geddis v. William J. Campbell, et al., App. Div. (4 pp.) Judge properly granted summary judgment to lessee of truck, enforcing a lease provision which required owner/lessor (who was also driving the rig at the time of the accident) to indemnify lessee for losses resulting from lessor’s negligence and to save harmless the lessee from claims so resulting. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION — GOING AND COMING RULE — SPECIAL MISSIONS 39-2-0443 Osvaldo Diaz v. JML Constr., etc., App. Div. (5 pp.) The judge, assessing the credibility of the parties, chose to disbelieve the petitioner’s assertions that he was told to proceed directly to job site rather than report to office, and therefore when petitioner was injured on his way to the job site, judge correctly found that injury had not arisen out of and in the course of petitioner’s employment and that petitioner had not carried his burden of proving that he had been engaged in a “special mission” at the time of the accident. FEDERAL COURT CASES CIVIL RIGHTS 46-7-0444 Florence R. Parker v. Police Officers Johnson and Kates, III, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (11 pp.) (1) The fact that police officers were mentioned in body of plaintiff’s original Section 1983 complaint belies any argument that these defendants knew or should have known that they would have been named as parties to the suit but for the failure of the plaintiff to learn their identity, and therefore the failure to name these defendants initially, not due to a mistake in identity, bars the relation-back rule in this case, and the claims against the officers in the amended complaint are dismissed as time-barred. (2) The claims against the municipal defendants are subject to dismissal because the plaintiff fails to allege that a municipal policy or custom caused the injury complained of, and further, has failed to adduce sufficient support for the claim that the City of Newark’s failure to train the defendant police officers in search and seizure caused the alleged deprivation of plaintiff’s rights. [Filed Oct. 17, 1996.] INSURANCE — ENTIRE CONTROVERSY 23-7-0445 The Pittston Co. v. Sedgwick James of N.Y., Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct. (27 pp.) (1) Where partial summary judgment is ordered in favor of less than all parties in an action, and such order is subsequently certified as a final judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54(b), such judgment does not constitute final judgment for purposes of N.J.’s entire controversy doctrine where the summary judgment order is not of the type that would qualify for interlocutory certification under N.J. Court Rule 4:42-2. (2) Although final judgment has not been entered in related marine insurance action, the court has the discretion to invoke the entire controversy doctrine prior to such entry of final judgment, and holds that it bars the instant action, which arises out of the same set of facts, and where defendant in this action could have and should have been joined in the first action. [Filed Oct. 18, 1996.][For publication.] WRONGFUL DEATH — NEGLIGENCE — JAIL DETAINEES 40-7-0446 Annie Chapple, et al. v. The City of Orange, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (10 pp.) In a case involving the death of plaintiff’s husband while he was a detainee in defendants’ jail, (1) since there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the jail police officers were negligent as to the deceased’s need for blood pressure medication, summary judgment cannot be granted to the defense on plaintiff’s wrongful death claim, (2) since there is no evidence to show that decedent suffered any severe emotional distress prior to his death, it is not necessary to address whether the officers acted intentionally or outrageously, and summary judgment is granted dismissing claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (3) since neither plaintiff nor her daughter observed the death of the decedent, the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress upon plaintiff and her daughter is dismissed. [Filed Oct. 18, 1996.] THIS WEEK IN THE … The U.S. attorney’s office is investigating business dealings and contracts in Passaic County. See page 1 of the Nov. 4 Law Journal.

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.