Thursday, April 30, 2020

8.30C DAMAGES — LOSS OF CHILD'S SERVICES AND EARNINGS


8.30             DAMAGES — PER QUOD
          C.      Loss of Child's Services and Earnings
                    (Approved 2/96)

          Parents are entitled to the services of their infant child, in the performance of household chores and to the child's earnings, until the child reaches the age of majority or is emancipated (for example, married) whichever is later. 
          After a child reaches majority or is emancipated, the right to loss of earnings belongs solely to the emancipated child; however the law recognizes that a child, after the age of majority, may perform services for the parents, may provide valuable companionship and care as the parents get older, and may make monetary contributions to the parents.
          Parents who are awarded a verdict are entitled to fair and reasonable compensation for any loss or decrease of the child's earnings, services, companionship or contributions before the child reaches majority, and any loss or impairment of their child's services because of injuries sustained as a result of the defendant's negligence (or other wrongdoing).
Cases:

Davis v. Eliz. Gen. Med. Ctr., 228 N.J. Super. 17 (Law Div. 1988); Mathias v. Luke, 37 N.J. Super. 241 (App. Div. 1955); cf: Brennan v. Biber, 93 N.J. Super. 351, aff'd o.b. 99 N.J. Super.247 (App. Div. 1966); Simmel v. N.J. Coop. Co., 28 N.J. 1 (1958).

For discussion of the pecuniary loss to a parent of an adult child see, Green v. Bittner, 85 N.J. 1 (1980).

For reduction of damages see, Tichenor v. Santillo, 218 N.J. Super. 165, 174 (App. Div. 1987).


Source: https://njcourts.gov/attorneys/civilcharges.html

8.30B DAMAGES — LOSS OF SPOUSE'S SERVICES, SOCIETY AND CONSORTIUM


8.30             DAMAGES — PER QUOD
          B.       Loss of Spouse's Services, Society and Consortium (Approved 2/96)

          A husband/wife is entitled to the services of his/her spouse in attending to the household duties, to companionship and comfort, and consortium, that is, marital relations.  A plaintiff who is awarded a verdict is entitled to fair and reasonable compensation for any loss of impairment of his or her spouse's services, society or consortium because of injuries sustained by him or her as a proximate result of the defendant's negligence (or other wrongdoing).  Damages may be awarded not only for total loss of services but for a worsening of their quality.
          [If appropriate the judge may charge,] Damages may include but are not limited to out of pocket expenses incurred in engaging the services of others to perform household duties previously attended to by his or her spouse. 

Cases:

Schuttler v. Reinhardt, 17 N.J. Super. 480 (App. Div. 1952); Rex v. Hunter, 26 N.J. 489 (1958).


Source: https://njcourts.gov/attorneys/civilcharges.html

8.30A DAMAGES — MEDICAL EXPENSES


8.30             DAMAGES — PER QUOD
          A.      Medical Expenses (Approved 2/96)
          In the event that the child [name] is awarded a verdict, his/her parent is entitled to payment for medical expenses which were reasonably required for the examination, treatment and care of injuries proximately caused by the defendant's negligence (or other wrongdoing).  Medical expenses are the costs of doctors' services, hospital services, medicines, medical supplies and medical tests and any other charges for medical services.  The amount of payment is the fair and reasonable value of such medical expenses.  You have heard testimony on whether these medical expenses were fair and reasonable in amount and whether they were reasonably necessary for the examination, care and treatment of the child.  If you determine that any of these bills were not fair and reasonable to any extent, or that any of these services were not reasonably necessary to any extent, you need not award the full amount claimed.  In this case, plaintiff [parent] is seeking the sum of [dollar amount] in medical expenses.  As a result, the upper limit of the award which you may make for medical expenses is [dollar amount], since you may not award more than plaintiff [parent] is seeking. 

Cases:

          Simmel v. N.J. Coop Co., 28 N.J. 1 (1958); Mathias v. Luke, 37 N.J. Super. 241 (App. Div. 1955); Schuttler v. Reinhardt, 17 N.J. Super. 480 (App. Div. 1952). 

          See cases under Model Civil Charge 8.11A on the collateral source rule.


Source: https://njcourts.gov/attorneys/civilcharges.html

Tuesday, April 28, 2020

8.21 NONUSE OF SEATBELT INCLUDING ULTIMATE OUTCOME


8.21             Nonuse of Seatbelt Including Ultimate OutcomE [1]  (12/09)

          As I told you earlier[2], defendant's contention that plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt is not relevant in deciding who is at fault for causing the accident.  But it may be meaningful in determining the amount of money plaintiff may recover for any injuries you find he/she received.  I would now like to tell you how this works.
          In order to succeed on this reduction of damages issue, defendant must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that:
          1.       Plaintiff was not using an available seatbelt at the time of the accident.[3]
          2.       Plaintiff was negligent in not using that seatbelt at the time of the accident.
        3.       Plaintiff's injuries were made greater or more severe because he/she was not using a seatbelt.  In other words, some or all of plaintiff's injuries could have been prevented or avoided if he/she had been using a seatbelt.[4]
          I would like now to talk with you about how you go about deciding if defendant has proven each of these three points to you.  You may note that each of these points is set out on the jury verdict sheet as questions (                                   ).
          The first point you must decide is whether defendant has shown that plaintiff was not using an available seatbelt at the time of the accident.
          The second point that defendant must show is that plaintiff was negligent for not using the seatbelt.
          Negligence in this type of situation is the failure to use the degree of care for one's own safety and protection that a reasonably prudent person would use in the same or similar circumstances.  By a reasonably prudent person I mean neither the most cautious person nor one who is unusually bold, but rather one of reasonable vigilance, caution and prudence.
          New Jersey law[5] requires the driver [and front seat passengers] of a car to wear a properly adjusted and fastened seatbelt while the vehicle is in operation on any street or highway of this State.  If you find that the plaintiff was in violation of that law at the time of the accident, you may consider that violation of a statutory duty of care on the issue of negligence.  However, the violation is not conclusive as to the issue of whether plaintiff was negligent.[6]  It is a factor or circumstance which you should consider in assessing the negligence, if any, of the plaintiff.  You may also take into account the prevailing custom of seatbelt use at the time of the accident.[7]  [That is, what percentage generally of the drivers (and front seat passengers) used a seatbelt at the time of the accident?]  Think about all of these factors in deciding whether plaintiff acted as a reasonably prudent person and, therefore, was or was not negligent in not using a seatbelt.
          If you decide that a reasonably prudent person would not have been using a seatbelt, then you should find that the plaintiff was not negligent and stop deliberating on the seatbelt damage reduction claim.[8]  However, if you decide that a reasonably prudent person would have used a seatbelt in that situation at that time, then you should find that the plaintiff was negligent and continue deliberating on the seatbelt damage reduction claim.
          If you find that the plaintiff was negligent, you must then decide whether the failure to use a seatbelt increased the extent or severity of his/her injuries.  In making this decision, you are to consider all of the evidence in this case, including the testimony of the expert witness(es) who testified.  Think about the total extent of plaintiff's injuries and whether any of those injuries would have been avoided if he/she had been using a seatbelt.  [WHERE APPLICABLE:  If you find that the plaintiff was severely injured, and the evidence shows that his/her severe injuries could not have been avoided by the use of a seatbelt, it is immaterial that some very minor injuries could have been avoided by seatbelt use.  Therefore, if the negligent failure to wear a seatbelt had no impact on the extent of the injury, you should cease to consider the seatbelt issue.  If, on the other hand, you find that the negligent failure to wear a seatbelt increased the extent or severity of injuries, you must then evaluate the impact of the failure to wear a seatbelt.][9]
          If you decide three facts — one, plaintiff was not using an available seatbelt at the time of the accident; two, plaintiff was negligent in not using the seatbelt; and three, as a result, plaintiff's injuries were made greater or more severe — then you must make two more decisions.  You will see that these appear as questions (     ) on your jury verdict sheet.
          The first is to decide what part of plaintiff's injuries would have been avoided if a seatbelt had been used.  The defendant has the burden of proving this to you.  To do this, you must first determine the value of the total damages which plaintiff incurred.  Then, you must set the amount of the damages that would have been sustained in the accident if a seatbelt had been used.  You will subtract that amount from the total damages actually sustained in order to obtain what I will call seatbelt damages.
          The final decision you must make about the seatbelt claim is whether you will allocate or assign some percentage of negligence or fault to plaintiff because of his/her failure to use a seatbelt.  This is a separate consideration of fault from your earlier one concerning the fault of the parties in causing the accident.  The percentage of negligence or fault I am talking about now is only in connection with the increased injuries.  For how much of that fault — in a percentage ranging from one to one hundred percent — do you find plaintiff is responsible?[10]
          You may be wondering why you have to make all of these decisions and how they may affect the final outcome of this case.  I want to describe that to you now.
          From the jury verdict sheet, you can see that you are making two separate decisions about fault.  The first one is as to the cause of the accident.  The second is as to the cause of any enhanced or increased injuries which occurred by not using a seatbelt.
          Understand that you are not being asked to make the mathema­tical calculations; that will be my job — to put your findings into effect.  But I am going to give you some idea as to how your decisions will work in affecting the final outcome in this case.[11]
          What I shall do is begin with your total amount of damages and then separate that money amount into two portions.  One portion shall be the sum you calculated for the plaintiff's enhanced injuries as a result of not wearing a seatbelt, which I have been calling seatbelt damages, and the other shall be the remainder sum of the non-seatbelt damages, which is the total damages, less seatbelt damages.
          I shall reduce the non-seatbelt damages by the percentage of fault, if any, you decide is plaintiff's for causing the accident.  I shall reduce the seatbelt damages by the total amount which you decide is plaintiff's for the fault of the accident and the failure to wear the seatbelt, taking into consideration defendant's fault for causing the accident.  I shall then add the two reduced amounts together to arrive at the total award to the plaintiff.
          But, as I said a moment ago, you do not do these calculations.  I do them, based on your answers on the jury verdict sheet.

JURY VERDICT SHEET
                                                             (Including Seatbelt Damages)

1.       Was D negligent in the operation of his/her motor vehicle?
                    Yes _____ go on to 2.
                     No  _____ end your discussions.
2.       If D was negligent, was his/her negligence a proximate cause of the accident?
                    Yes _____ go on to 3.
                     No  _____ end your discussions.
3.       Was P Negligent in the operation of his/her motor vehicle?
                    Yes _____ go on to 4.
                     No  _____ skip over 4 and 5, and go on to 6.
4.       If P was negligent, was his/her negligence a proximate cause of the accident?
                    Yes _____ go on to 5.
                     No  _____ skip over 5 and go on to 6.
5.       Comparison of negligence in causing the accident:
                    P                  _____%
                    D                 _____%
                    Total              100  %
                    Go on to 6 only if the negligence of D in causing the accident is 50% or more; if D's negligence in causing the accident is less than 50%, end your discussions.

6.       Was P using an available seatbelt at the time of the accident?

                    Yes _____ skip over 7 and 8 and go on to 9.
                     No  _____ go on to 7.
7.       Was P negligent for not using a seatbelt?
                    Yes _____ go on to 8.
                     No  _____ skip over 8 and go on to 9.
8.       Were P's injuries made greater or more severe because he/she was not using a seatbelt?

                    Yes _____ go on to 9.
                     No  _____ go on to 9.
9.       P's total damages from the accident:     $___________.
                    Go on to 10 only if you answered 8 as "yes."  If you answered 6, 7 or 8 as "no," end your discussions.
10.     P's damages, if he/she had used a seatbelt $___________.
                    Go to 11.
11.     P's seatbelt damages (answer to 9 minus answer to 10):  $___________.
                    Go to 12.
12.     P's negligence for not using a seatbelt: ______% (from 1% to 100%).
                    End your discussions; return your verdict.

Source: https://njcourts.gov/attorneys/civilcharges.html

[1]     This charge incorporates the standards of Waterson v. General Motors Corp., 111 N.J. 238 (1988), but does not incorporate the standard charge on ultimate outcome regarding liability, which appears at Model Civil Charge 7.31.

[2]     This refers to Model Civil Charge 5.30K.

[3]     Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, all passenger automobiles manufactured after June 30, 1986, must be equipped with a safety seat belt system.  Since the determination of Waterson that the enactment of N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(e) et seq. reinforced a public policy encouraging the use of seat belts, and since those statutes require the driver and front seat passenger to wear a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt, several questions continue after Waterson.  For example, could plaintiff be negligent for knowingly occupying a vehicle with a non-functioning seat belt?  If there is a factual dispute whether the available seat belt was functional, who has the burden of proving that it was functional?  Does the rationale of Waterson apply to vehicles other than passenger automobiles?  Does Waterson apply to situations exempted under N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(g) from seat belt usage requirements?
[4]     Normally, this will require expert testimony.  See, Dunn v. Durso, 219 N.J. Super. 383, 388-389 (Law Div. 1986), and Barry v. The Coca Cola Co., 99 N.J. Super. 270, 274-275 (Law Div. 1967).

[5]     N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(f).  The statute applies only to passenger automobiles, not other vehicles.

[6]     Waterson, supra, 111 N.J. at 263.

[7]     Waterson, supra, 111 N.J. at 266.

[8]     See, Bleeker v. Trickolo, 89 N.J. Super. 502 (App. Div. 1965), and Johnson v. Salem Corp., 97 N.J. 78, 97-98 (1984).
[9]     Waterson, supra, 111 N.J. at 272.

[10]  Query:  Does this apply when the plaintiff-front seat passenger is between 5 and 17 years of age? See N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(f)(b).
[11]  The process is fully described in Waterson, supra, 111 N.J. at 270-275, especially at 274.

8.20 MEDICAL EXPENSES (AUTO)


8.20             Medical Expenses (Auto) (Approved 12/1996; Revised 01/2017)

          The plaintiff's claim in this case does not include any claims for medical expenses.  Therefore, in determining the reasonable amount of damages due to plaintiff, you shall not speculate upon or include medical expenses as a part of the damages.

                                                                   NOTE TO JUDGE

Roig v. Kelsey, 135 N.J. 500 (1994).  The New Jersey No Fault Law Automobile Reparation Reform Act N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1 et seq. bars recovery for the medical expense deductible and 20% co-payment under PIP policies.


Source: https://njcourts.gov/attorneys/civilcharges.html

8.11I DAMAGES CHARGES — FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES


8.11             DAMAGES CHARGES — GENERAL
I.        FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES [1]  (Approved 5/97)
          Plaintiff in this case seeks to recover future medical expenses.  Plaintiff has a right to be compensated for any future medical expenses resulting from the injuries brought about by defendant's wrongdoing.[2]
          If it is reasonably probable that plaintiff will incur medical expenses in the future then you should also include an amount to compensate the plaintiff for those medical expenses.  In deciding how much to award for future medical expenses think about the factors mentioned in discussing the nature, extent and duration of plaintiff's injury.  Also consider plaintiff's age today, his/her general state of health before the accident, and how long you reasonably expect the medical expenses to continue.  Obviously, the time period covering plaintiff's future medical expenses cannot go beyond that point when it is expected that he/she may recover from his/her injuries.[3] You should also consider plaintiff's life expectancy in assessing future medical expenses.[4] 
          But you should be aware that the figures that you have been given on life expectancy are only statistical averages.  Do not treat them as necessary or fixed rules, since they are general estimates.  Use them with caution and use your sound judgment in taking them into account. 
          For future medical expenses you must base your decision on the probable amount that plaintiff will incur.  It is the burden of the plaintiff to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the probable need for future medical care and the reasonableness of the charge for future medical care. 
          In deciding what plaintiff's future medical expenses are, understand that the law does not require of you mathematical exactness.  Rather, you must use sound judgment based on reasonable probability. 
          Once you have decided how much medical care plaintiff will need in the future, you must then consider the effects of inflation and interest.  As to inflation, you should consider the effects it probably will have in reducing the purchasing power of money.  Any award for future medical expenses should be increased to account for losses due to inflation.  The consideration of interest requires that you should not just award plaintiff the exact amount of medical care that he/she will need in the future.  The reason for that is that plaintiff will have that money now even though he/she will not have needed that money until some time in the future.  And that means that plaintiff will be able to invest the money and earn interest on it now even though he/she otherwise would not have had that money to invest until some future date. 
          To make up for this, you must make an adjustment for having the money available now even though the expense will not be experienced until the future.  This adjustment is known as discounting, and what discounting does is give you the value of the money that you get now instead of getting it at some future time.  In other words, it gives you the present value or present worth in a single lump sum of money which otherwise was going to be received over a number of years at so much per year. 
          Your goal is to create a fund of money which will be enough to provide plaintiff future medical care and which will be used up at the end of the total period of need.  In arriving at the amount of that fund — the present value of future need — you should consider the interest the fund would earn, the probable amount by which taxation on the interest would decrease the money available to plaintiff and the effect of inflation in decreasing the purchasing power of money.

Source: https://njcourts.gov/attorneys/civilcharges.html

[1]  If the attorneys will stipulate as a fact that the interest and inflation rates will offset each other, only paragraphs one, two and three of this section need be charged.
[2]  Coll v. Sherry, 29 N.J. 166, 174 (1959). 
[3]  The collateral source rule (see cases under Model Civil Charges 8.11C and 8.11A) applies to loss of earnings as well as to medical and hospital expenses.  Plaintiff may recover damages for loss of earnings although having been paid wages or their equivalent by employer pursuant to sick or annual leave benefits or retirement on half salary under a pension contract.  Rusk v. Jeffries, 110 N.J.L. 307, 311 (E. & A. 1933).  Chap. 326, L. 1987, eliminates the collateral source rule as to causes of action arising on or after December 18, 1987.  Deduction of benefits, less premiums, is done by the court, not the jury.  See also N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(3) for similar effect for Tort Claims Act causes of action.  See Parker v. Esposito, 291 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 1996) for application of collateral source rule to future benefits. 
[4]  This concept should be charged if there is appropriate evidence received on the subject. 

8.11H DAMAGES CHARGES — CAPITALIZATION


8.11              DAMAGES CHARGES — GENERAL
          H.      CAPITALIZATION (pre-1984)
          The plaintiff introduced testimony that $ _____ is the amount which if invested today at 3½% compound interest would produce $1.00 per year for the _____ years of his/her life expectancy [or work life expectancy].  You may apply this figure of $ _____ in your award of damages, if any, for future loss of earnings but you need not do so or you may make such adjustment in it as you determine to be fair and reasonable.
          If you apply the figure of $______, do so as follows:  determine the amount of the plaintiff's loss of earnings proximately caused by this injury and disability starting today into the future.  This may be an amount based upon the difference between what you find the plaintiff would have earned if it had not been for this injury and disability and what you find he/she will earn in such employment as he/she is physically capable of undertaking.  Reach your calculation of the amount to be awarded for his/her future loss of earnings by multiplying $______ by what you have determined to be the plaintiff's average dollar loss of earnings per year from now into the future.  That amount, or such other amount as you arrive at fairly and reasonably, should be included in your verdict to compensate the plaintiff for his/her future loss of earnings.
                                                                 NOTE TO JUDGE

This model charge may be adapted to provide a formula for calculation of the pecuniary loss to the dependents or next of kin in wrongful death actions.

Further explanatory language to supplement this model charge:  "The law says we must ascertain the present value of future losses.  Our rules have provided a method which may be used in ascertaining the present value of future losses.  There is a difference in the value of an amount of money given as a lump sum at the present time and the present value of the same amount given in periodic future payments, such as weekly (monthly) contributions over a period of years during the next of kin's anticipated life expectancy.  A sum of money due at some future time is not worth that much today because if you were paid today you would have the money to invest and it would earn interest.  You take the amount you wish to have in the future and discount it, that is, reduce it making allowance for the interest you would earn by getting the money earlier." 

Cases:
         
Koppovich v. LeWinter, 43 N.J. Super. 528, 533 (App. Div. 1957), certif. den. 24 N.J. 112 (1957); Dickerson v. Mutual Grocery Co., 100 N.J.L. 118, 120 (E. & A. 1924).


Source: https://njcourts.gov/attorneys/civilcharges.html

8.11G DAMAGES CHARGES — LIFE EXPECTANCY


8.11             DAMAGES CHARGES — GENERAL
          G.      (i) LIFE EXPECTANCY (Approved 02/1996)
          If you make an award for future pain and suffering, disability and impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, medical expenses, and loss of future earnings, you may consider the plaintiff's life expectancy.  Plaintiff's life expectancy today (at the time of the accident) is _______ years.  That is an estimation of his/her probable length of life based upon statistical data.  Since it is a general estimate, you should use it with caution in an individual case.  The plaintiff may live a longer or shorter period than the estimated figure.  You should exercise your sound judgment in applying the life expectancy figure without treating it as a necessary and fixed rule. 
Cases:

Dalton v. Gesser, 72 N.J. Super. 100 (App. Div. 1962); Housen v. Olesky, 71 N.J.Super. 95 (App. Div. 1961); Kappovich v. LeWinter, 43 N.J. Super. 528 (App. Div. 1957); Dickerson v. Mutual Grocer Co., 100 N.J.L. 118 (E. & A. 1924).

                    (ii)  TIME UNIT RULE (Approved 04/2015)
          [The following charge may be given where appropriate and with proper notice by counsel and in keeping with Rule 1:7-1(b)]

          Our Rules of Court permit counsel to argue to the jury the appropriateness of applying a time unit calculation in determining damages for pain and suffering, disability, impairment and loss of enjoyment of life.  Counsel are not permitted to mention specific amounts of money for the calculation of such damages.  They are permitted, however, to argue that you may employ a time unit calculation, that is, to consider an amount of money in relation to an amount of time, when determining such damages. . 
          I charge you, Ladies and Gentlemen, that the argument of counsel with reference to calculation of damages on a time-unit basis is argument only and is not to be considered by you as evidence.  Counsel’s statements are a suggestion to you as to how you might determine damages for pain and suffering, disability, impairment and loss of enjoyment of life.  You are free to accept or reject this argument as you deem appropriate.  I remind you that you are to make a determination on the amount of damages based on the evidence presented and the instructions I have given you on damages.

Source: https://njcourts.gov/attorneys/civilcharges.html