Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2199-14T1
09-23-2016
PATRICIA NEWTON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SAM'S EAST, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and YINTAK CHONG, Defendant-Respondent.
Michael K. Furey argued the cause for appellants (Day Pitney LLP, attorneys; Mr. Furey, of counsel and on the briefs; Clara Y. Son and Jennifer Gorga Capone, on the briefs). Edward Harrington Heyburn argued the cause for respondent Patricia Newton.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is only binding on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. Before Judges Sabatino, Nugent and Currier. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Docket No. L-0097-10. Michael K. Furey argued the cause for appellants (Day Pitney LLP, attorneys; Mr. Furey, of counsel and on the briefs; Clara Y. Son and Jennifer Gorga Capone, on the briefs). Edward Harrington Heyburn argued the cause for respondent Patricia Newton. PER CURIAM
This is a personal injury action. Defendant, Sam's East, Inc., appeals for the second time from an order denying its motion for a new trial on damages or remittitur. The facts of the underlying accident are detailed in our opinion disposing of defendant's first appeal, Patricia Newton v. Sam's Club, No. A-4910-11 (App. Div. May 2, 2013), and need not be repeated here. In that opinion, we upheld the jury's liability verdict but "remand[ed] the matter of damages to the Law Division for a complete and searching analysis, including 'a factual analysis of how the award is different or similar to others to which it is compared.'" Id. (slip op. at 16) (quoting He v. Miller, 207 N.J. 230, 251 (2011)).
On remand, the trial court evaluated the damage award using the comparative-verdict methodology required by the plurality in He, and again denied defendant's motion for a new trial or remittitur. Defendant appealed, contending the trial court's He analysis was flawed.
Following oral argument before us on defendant's appeal, the Supreme Court decided Cuevas v. Wentworth Grp., ___ N.J. ___ (2016). In Cuevas, the court concluded that "a judge's reliance on personal knowledge of other verdicts and on purportedly comparable verdicts presented by the parties in deciding whether to remit a pain-and-suffering damages award . . . is not sound in principle or workable in practice." Id. (slip op. at 3). The Court held: "The standard is not whether a damages award shocks the judge's personal conscience, but whether it shocks the judicial conscience." Ibid. The Court disapproved "of the comparative-verdict methodology that allows parties to present supposedly comparable verdicts based on case summaries." Ibid. The Court explained: "In the end, a thorough analysis of the case itself; of the witnesses' testimony; of the nature, extent, and duration of the plaintiff's injuries; and of the impact of those injuries on the plaintiff's life will yield the best record on which to decide a remittitur motion." Id. (slip op. at 39).
In view of the Supreme Court's disapproval of the He comparative-verdict methodology, we are constrained to remand this matter for consideration of the jury's damage award to plaintiff Patricia Newton under the principles set forth in Cuevas. When it rendered its previous decisions, the trial court analyzed some of the criteria included in Cuevas, but the trial court also relied on factors either extraneous to a Cuevas analysis or now discredited by Cuevas. We cannot discern the extent to which the trial court relied on the latter material. Equally important, the parties are entitled to argue their respective positions anew in light of Cuevas, a right that would be denied them absent a remand.
For these reasons, we vacate the December 1, 2014 Law Division order denying defendant's motion for a new trial or remittitur. The trial court shall set a briefing schedule and a date for oral argument. The remand proceedings shall be completed within ninety days. If either party seeks appellate review, the Clerk's office shall issue an expedited briefing schedule.
Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION