4 posts tagged "For Lawyers"
Posted on Sun Feb 24 2013 by Vincent Jesuele
I’ve noticed that there seems to be a lot of confusion about the apostrophe in the phrase “workers’ compensation.” I’ve seen ”workers compensation,” ”workers’ compensation,” and even ”worker’s compensation.” So which is correct?
Posted on Thu Sep 13 2012 by Vincent Jesuele
If you practice Plaintiff’s personal injury law in New Jersey, you are no doubt painfully aware of the practical effect of the 1997 New Jersey Supreme Court ruling in Brooks v. Odom, 150 N.J. 395 (1997). At first glance, the holding with its mile high standard would appear to sound a death knell to the run-of-the-mill Title 59 case. On closer examination, however, the scope and breadth of Brooks is not all-encompassing.
Posted on Thu Sep 06 2012 by Vincent Jesuele
In the words of a noted Torts professor, “Never drop your briefcase and run.” This lesson is no more apt than when faced with a “Verbal Threshold” case. Consider the following scenario:
On August 18, 2011, Plaintiff is operating his motor vehicle and is stopped with his left directional signal activated when he is struck in the rear by a tractor-trailer owned by XYZ Inc. and operated by its employee, John Doe. As a result, plaintiff sustains “soft tissue” injuries, undergoes several months of chiropractic care and is discharged with minor residuals. Plaintiff’s personal automobile policy contains the “Verbal Threshold” option which plaintiff had selected at his last policy renewal.
Many practitioners, faced with this situation, and a turn-down by the liability carrier, would counsel their client against instituting a lawsuit since the prospects of recovery are slim and the costs of litigation great. Still others would settle their client’s claims for “nuisance value.” A careful examination of the law and facts, however, would lead some practitioners to the realization that plaintiff’s claims are not governed by the Verbal Threshold.
Posted on Thu Aug 30 2012 by Vincent Jesuele
In the early morning hours of June 21, 2012, on a dark stretch of the Garden State Parkway, Defendant X, an intoxicated motorist, failed to negotiate an exit ramp curve. As a result, the motorist traversed a forty foot grass berm, re-entered the Parkway, struck another southbound automobile and injured the driver, and finally came to rest across the center southbound lane of the Parkway. The force of the impact rendered Defendant X’s automobile disabled and without lights.
Several minutes later, Plaintiff Y, also travelling south on the Parkway, brought his car to a stop on the right side shoulder and exited his vehicle in an attempt to render assistance to the intoxicated motorist. While standing in the center lane, and attempting to divert traffic away from the wreck, Plaintiff Y was struck by a third automobile, and was fatally injured.