05-2-2481 Young et al. v. Thomas et al. , App. Div. (per curiam) (8 pp.) After a rear-end collision, defendant stipulated liability and a jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant on the sole issue of whether plaintiff suffered a permanent injury. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial judge erred by barring testimony of injury to other occupants of her car, asserting the door to the admission of this evidence was opened when defense counsel asked defendant whether “anybody” stated they were injured at the scene of the accident. Finding the court’s curative instruction sufficient, the appellate panel affirmed the denial of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. [Decided Dec. 17, 2008.]
AUTOMOBILES — ACCIDENT — NEGLIGENCE — PRODUCTS LIABILITY
05-3-2426 Toth v. Bloom et al. , Law Div. — Somerset Cy. (Rubin, J.S.C.) (8 pp.) This matter arises from an automobile accident in which a tire became unattached from a truck operated by an agent of defendant Nemeth Asphalt, striking an automobile driven by defendant Moskal, which collided with plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff brought suit against defendant Nemeth based on a theory of negligence and against defendants Hendrickson USA, Horwith Trucks and Hale Trailers based on a theory of products liability. Here, finding that the trial court appropriately held the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is applicable to the specific facts of this case, the court denies the defendants’ motion for reconsideration. Additionally, the burden of proving causation and the burden of persuasion shifts from the plaintiff to defendants. [Decided Dec. 12, 2008.]
