The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in four new matters. As is often the case, they are a varied group.
In Lapsley v. Sparta Tp., the question presented is “Were petitioner’s injuries, which resulted when she was struck by a snowplow driven by a Township employee as she was walking after work in a parking lot used by Township employees, compensable pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act, particularly under the premises rule, N.J.S.A. 34:15:36?” In a published opinion reported at 466 N.J. Super. 120 (App. Div. 2021), and discussed here, a three-judge Appellate Division panel reversed the decision of a judge of compensation and ruled in favor of the petitioner-employee.
Haviland v. Lourdes Medical Center of Burlington County, Inc. presents this question: “Does the Affidavit of Merit Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26 to -29, require an affidavit of merit when a plaintiff’s sole claim against a health care facility is vicarious liability based on the alleged medical negligence of an employee against whom no affidavit of merit is required?” Three judges of the Appellate Division, in a published opinion reported at 466 N.J. Super. 126 (App. Div. 2021), reversed a decision of the Law Division and held that no affidavit of merit was required in the circumstances of that case. The Appellate Division’s opinion was discussed here.
Graphnet, Inc. v. Retarus, Inc., a defamation case, offers this question: “Under the circumstances presented, is plaintiff entitled to a new trial on nominal damages?” After a jury awarded plaintiff $800,000 in “nominal” damages, the trial judge granted defendant’s motion for remittitur. The judge fixed nominal damages at $500. Rejecting that award, plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate Division, in an unpublished opinion by a three-judge panel, found that while the jury award was “shockingly excessive and cannot stand,” plaintiff’s decision not to accept the reduced award entitled plaintiff to a new trial, limited to a jury determination of nominal damages, if any.
Finally, the evidence issue is presented in State v. Gerena, the only criminal case in this group. As phrased by the Clerk’s office, the issue in that case is “Was the testimony from a police officer and a lay witness estimating the heights and ages of children that they observed near defendant in a public park admissible in this criminal trial in which defendant was charged with offenses that include as a statutory element that one of the children be under the age of thirteen?” In its published opinion, reported at 465 N.J. Super. 548 (App. Div. 2021), and discussed here, a three-judge panel affirmed the decision of the Law Division that permitted the testimony in question as lay opinion testimony under Evidence Rule 701. The panel thus upheld defendant’s conviction for lewdness, though it remanded for a hearing on jail credits.