8.11 DAMAGES
CHARGES — GENERAL
F. AGGRAVATION
OF THE PREEXISTING DISABILITY (Approved 1/97)
In this case, evidence has been
presented that [plaintiff] had an illness/injury(ies)/condition before
the accident/incident — that is [describe the alleged preexisting injury]. I will refer to this condition as the
preexisting injury.[1] There are different rules for awarding
damages depending on whether the preexisting injury was or was not causing
plaintiff any harm or symptoms at the time of this accident.
Obviously, the defendants in this case
are not responsible for any preexisting injury of [plaintiff]. As a result, you may not award any money in
this case for damages attributable solely to any preexisting
illness/injury(ies)/condition.
I will now explain what happens if the
[plaintiff] was experiencing symptoms of the preexisting condition at
the time of the accident. If the
injuries sustained in this accident aggravated or made [plaintiff’s]
preexisting injury more severe, then the [plaintiff] may recover for any
damages sustained due to an aggravation or worsening of a preexisting
illness/injury(ies)/condition but only to the extent of that aggravation. Plaintiff has the burden of proving what
portion of his/her condition is due to his/her preexisting injury.[2] [Plaintiff] is entitled to damages
only for that portion of his/her injuries attributable to the accident.
If you find that [plaintiff's]
preexisting illness/injury(ies)/condition was not causing him/her any harm or
symptoms at the time of the accident, but that the preexisting condition
combined with injuries incurred in the accident to cause him/her damage, then [plaintiff]
is entitled to recover for the full extent of the damages he/she
sustained.
[Use the
following where a preexisting latent condition is involved].
I will now explain what happens if [plaintiff]
had a predisposition or weakness which was causing no symptoms or problems
before the accident but made him/her more susceptible to the kind of medical
problems he/she claims in this case. If
the injuries sustained in this accident combined with that predisposition to
create the plaintiff's medical condition, then plaintiff is entitled to recover
for all of the damage sustained due to that condition. You must not speculate that an individual
without such predisposition or latent condition would have experienced less
pain, suffering, disability and impairment.[3]
Source: https://njcourts.gov/attorneys/civilcharges.html
[1] This rule does not apply to
medical malpractice cases; there the defendant has the burden of segregating
recoverable damages from those solely incident to preexisting disease. Fosgate v. Corona , 66 N.J. 268 (1974). See
also Scafidi v. Seiler, 119
N.J. 93 (1990) and Model Civil Charge 5.50E. The burden of proving which of plaintiff's
conditions were caused by preexisting events is shifted to the defendants
whenever defendants have vastly greater access than plaintiff to crucial
proofs. Blanks v. Murphy, 268 N.J.
Super. 152 (App. Div. 1993) citing Sholtis v. American Cyanamid Co. , 238 N.J. Super 8 (App. Div. 1989) (applying
the same principal in the area of asbestos exposure injuries). See
also Thornton v. General Motors Corp.,
280 N.J. Super 295 (Law Div. 1994) applying the Fosgate and Scafidi
principal of burden shifting to the defendant manufacturer in a crashworthy
case.
[2] There may be cases where based
on medical testimony or other evidence there is no dispute that the preexisting
injury was quiescent in which case the second and third paragraphs of the
charge might be omitted.
[3] Quagliato v. Bodner, 115 N.J. Super. 133 (App. Div. 1971) contains detailed
instructions for how to handle the unusual circumstance where two separate
tortious events such as automobile accidents within a few months which cause
overlapping or invisible injuries are properly consolidated for a damage-only
trial after a finding of liability.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.