In the State of New Jersey, the owner of an automobile may be responsible for another's accident under two separate theories of liability. The first is called "respondeat superior". This is where the driver of a vehicle is carrying out business for the vehicle's owner and is involved in an accident. This would be the case where an employee is driving an employer's car for business purposes. Despite the fact that the employee was operating the vehicle, the employer would also be responsible for any damages.

The second theory is called "negligent entrustment". Basically, this theory is based upon the owner's own negligence for allowing another individual to operate their vehicle when the owner has reason to know that the other individual is irresponsible or has a greater propensity to operate the vehicle improperly given the owner's knowledge of prior conduct. For instance, if you allow an individual with a suspended license for 14 speeding violations to operate your car and they are involved in a high speed collision, it is likely that you will have some responsibility for the happening of that accident.

An Appellate Court of New Jersey recently discussed these theories of liability and a potential cause of action in the case of Jafar v. Elrac Inc. There, two teenagers were struck and killed by the driver of a vehicle who claimed that his company transferred him to an outside sales job despite the fact that the company had full and complete knowledge of his drinking problem. Thus, the theory was asserted that the employer should not have given this individual an outside sales job because it was foreseeable that he would be operating a motor vehicle and, with his drinking problem, may be operating that motor vehicle in an intoxicated state. Therefore, it was alleged, that the company was negligent in its own right for making this outside sales transfer.

The Court dismissed the claim against the employer not on the legal theory but, instead, on the facts of the case. There was no indication in the facts of the case that the employer knew that its employee was drunk on the night in question or that it had the ability to control his actions that evening. Based on those facts, the Court could not find liability.

It is important to note that the argument in favor of liability in this matter was a valiant attempt at stretching the present state of the law. In this regard, under different facts, it is likely that a court could find liability against an employer if that employer knowingly places an employee into a situation where it is foreseeable that the employee may cause injury to others. Obviously, in order to expand upon current law, you will require services of a trained and qualified attorney who can properly evaluate the facts of your case.

A recent flurry of commuter or tour bus accidents raises various issues with regard to passenger rights and obligations after the accident occurs. Specifically, there are issues concerning notice requirements and medical bills that a layperson may not be aware of after being involved in such an accident, but that an attorney would.

As you may know from our website or prior blogs, any time an individual is injured in a motor vehicle accident, that persons' automobile insurance coverage will be responsible to pay for that person's medical bills as long as they are reasonable and related to the motor vehicle accident. However, most, if not, all motor vehicle insurance policies will have a specific exclusion of medical bills incurred as a result of injury while you are being transported in a bus or other livery conveyance. Accordingly, if you are injured in a bus accident, it may be most prudent to attempt to have your medical bills paid by your automobile insurance carrier and, when declined, utilize your primary health insurance coverage. If you do not have health insurance, it is important to seek legal advice so that an attorney may determine whether or not the insurance coverage on the bus has policy provisions, which would pay for medical bills in the event of personal injury sustained in an accident.

In any event, should you have any questions concerning the payment of medical bills after being injured as a passenger on a bus, you should contact an attorney that has experience in personal injury and insurance coverage.

In addition to issues concerning medical bills, there may also be issues concerning notice requirements. For instance, if you are traveling on a New Jersey Transit Bus, New Jersey Transit is considered a subdivision of the State of New Jersey, and, as such, you would be entitled to place New Jersey Transit on notice within 90 days of your accident if you have sustained injuries and intend to sue.

Again, it is imperative that you contact an attorney immediately should you be involved in any accident of this sort and you suffer any sort of injury. Legal recourse presents various issues that require analysis in order to determine whether or not you are able to recover compensatory damages or coverage for medical care. Call an attorney who has the experience and the knowledge to help you get through the process.

Two recent settlements between school districts and students highlight society's general intolerance for bullying within schools. As reported in our earlier blog, New Jersey recognizes a cause of action against a school board when that school board fails to prevent, or attempt to prevent, the bullying of one student by others. We indicated in our earlier blog that the basis for such lawsuits in New Jersey is New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The linking of a "bullying" cause of action to New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination allows for a successful claimant to obtain punitive damages and counsel fees, in addition to compensatory damages.

Lenape Valley Regional High School District in Stanhope, New Jersey recently agreed to a settlement of $275,000.00 to a former high school student who is black, alleged that administrators did not properly handle repeated racial harassment by white students against him. In another case involving bullying and harassment, the United States Department of Education reached a voluntary agreement with the Hawaii Public School System over a bullying complaint filed by the parents of a high school student who was repeatedly bullied by other students. The alleged bullying adversely affected her school attendance and grades. While it is not certain to us at this point in time whether the State of Hawaii actually recognizes a cause of action as does New jersey, the high school student's parents filed a complaint with the United States Department of Education alleging that their daughter was being discriminated against. The settlement between the United States Department of Education and Hawaii Public Schools requires various administrators and teachers to undergo sensitivity and harassment training in order to more easily recognize the existence of same.

Given current social trends in technology, including Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites, it would appear that such bullying and harassment cases will increase in number, and may even reach beyond the doors of the school. In this regard, we await the filing of unique causes of action not based upon school harassment but harassment through the other social media. An attorney well versed in ongoing developments in negligence law can determine how to best pursue any similar situated case, so do not hesitate to consult a lawyer as soon as possible if you find yourself or a loved one dealing with bullying.

A recent unreported New Jersey Appellate Division decision reveals that a breach of a duty of care does not always give rise to liability in a negligence claim. In Ocampo v. Famco, the Appellate Division rejected a plaintiff's case wherein a sleepwalking 16 year old fell out of a 2nd story window with a nonfunctioning lock, finding that it was not reasonable for a jury to conclude that such an accident was foreseeable under the circumstances.

A viable cause of action based in negligence requires the following elements: 1. a duty to the plaintiff; 2. the breach of a duty; 3. proximate causation; and 4. damages. In the case involving the 16 year old, there is no doubt that the defendant landlord had a duty to properly maintain the subject apartment, including the window lock. Further, there was no question that the defendant landlord failed to comply with this duty by failing to ensure that the lock was functioning. Unfortunately, the plaintiff was unable to show proximate causation. Basically, under New Jersey law, proximate causation is based, in part, on the foreseeability. In this regard, an injury or damages will not be considered "proximately caused" by another's breach of duty unless a jury can conclude that such damages are "reasonably foreseeable" under the circumstances.

In the above referenced case, the Appellate Division found that because the youngest person residing in the apartment was 16 years old, a jury could not possibly conclude that one would fall out a second story window due to a nonfunctioning lock. In other words, the Appellate Division concluded that it was not foreseeable that someone 16 years older would fall out of 2nd story window due to a nonfunctioning lock.

We disagree with the Appellate Division's holding in this regard! It is just as foreseeable that an "incapacitated" 16 year old could fall out of a 2nd story window as a two or three year old child. "Incapacitated" could include a sleepwalker, a mentally incapacitated person, or someone on prescription or over the counter medication, or under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. Is it not foreseeable that 16 year old, who is the youngest resident in the apartment, could be incapacitated under one of the above theories? We think so. Would the landlord be responsible if the neighbor's 3 year old had fallen out of the window instead? We think so. In our view, what is and is not foreseeable, as far as issues of proximate cause are concerned, should be left to the sound discretion of a jury, and as such, we believe the appellate division erred in dismissing this plaintiff's case.

In these types of cases, only an expert, experienced attorney should be retained in order to protect your rights and pursue your interests to the fullest extent the law allows, and to get the justice you deserve.

The Kansas City Star reported on October 4, 2010 that a woman has filed a lawsuit against two former priests in Kansas City, claiming that the two priests "sexually abused" her over 30 years ago. The woman, now 49, had apparently repressed the painful memory of the abuse until last year. Filing of such a personal injury lawsuit generally raises issues involving statute of limitations, or filing deadlines. This complex area of the law can be successfully navigated such that a plaintiff's interests are served to the fullest extent of the law by an attorney who has experience.

In New Jersey, the statute of limitations for a sexual assault case like the one filed in Kansas City above, is generally 2 years from the date of the actual assault. However, New Jersey recognizes that statues of limitations may be tolled by the "discovery rule," and further, that the statute of limitations may be tolled when the plaintiff is suffering from a disability which would prevent him or her from filing suit within the time limitations.

The "discovery rule" will toll a statute of limitations for the period of time that the plaintiff is unaware that he or she sustained an injury or unaware that a specific injury was caused by someone else's wrongdoing. Generally, the usual case in which the case the discovery rule would apply would be medical malpractice where a doctor leaves an instrument in a patient. The patient may suffer symptoms as a result of the foreign object immediately after the surgery, but not be aware of the foreign object's presence until many years later; more than 2 years after the surgery. Under those circumstances, although the symptoms of the injury were known to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not aware that someone else's actions negligence caused the injury until the object is detected.

In another example, the "discovery rule" would apply where a potential wrongful act was known but where the damages from that wrongful act were not discovered until well after the applicable statute of limitations. An example of this would be where there is an exposure to a toxic chemical, but that the symptoms and injury do not expose themselves until more than 2 years after the exposure takes place. In this scenario, the statute of limitations would be tolled until such time that the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that their injuries were related to the toxic exposure.

In addition to the above, New Jersey law states that a statute of limitations will not run against a minor or incompetent, meaning that someone is under a disability that prevents them from being aware of their legal rights or preventing them from exercising their legal rights. Therefore, generally, statutes of limitations for injuries sustained by minors will not toll until that minor's 20th birthday, because that would be 2 years after the minor's "disability" is removed.

With regard to the sexual abuse by priests and others many years ago, plaintiffs are able to file these suits based on either one or both of the above referenced statute of limitations tolling mechanisms. In some cases, the plaintiff will argue that they were not aware of their damages or had otherwise repressed memory or awareness of the sexual act until such time that it was ultimately revealed through psychiatric or psychological treatment. Other plaintiffs will argue that the emotional distress that they suffered at the hands of the molester caused an emotional disability that prevented them from filing suit or being aware of their legal rights within the applicable statute of limitations. Under either scenario, the standard for proving the disability or tolling of the statute of limitations is a great one, and an attorney must take great care to do it the properly. Accordingly, it is best that expert legal counsel be retained as soon as possible in the event that you or someone close to you finds them in such a situation.

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently decided a case wherein it held that waivers of liability in health club contracts and gym membership contracts are valid and enforceable. In Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, LLC, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's case because the contract that the contract signed with the defendant health club contained a "waiver of liability" and, as such, she was unable to be compensated for her pain and suffering, disability and impairment and loss of enjoyment of life for injuries sustained while exercising at the health club.

In the above-referenced case, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant health club to utilize the health club's premises, machines and staff in exchange for a monthly payment. Contained within the contract that the plaintiff signed was a paragraph which purported to prevent the health club from being responsible for any and all injuries sustained by the plaintiff (or any users of the health club) while at the health club or using their facilities. Although contracts of this type have existed for many years, it was generally the long standing rule in the State of New Jersey that parties to a contract could not obtain a waiver of liability for their own negligent acts. For instance, such contracts were upheld if an individual was hurt in the health club or suffered, for instance, a heart attack, while exercising where the injury was in no way related to the general negligence of the health club facility. However, liability against the health club would generally be upheld where the health club's actual negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.

In this recent case, the Supreme Court basically changed and clarified that long standing rule and concluded that such waivers of liability are fully enforceable even where the health club's alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. For instance, in this Supreme Court case, the plaintiff was engaging in a spinning class when the handlebars on the spin bike became loose causing her to fall and sustain serious personal injury. The allegations were that the handlebars were not properly secured by the class instructor. As such, it was the health club's staff's negligence which proximately causes the plaintiff's injury.

The Court held that such a plaintiff may only maintain suit against the health club if it can be shown that the health club's behavior was reckless, intentional or willful and wanton as opposed to just general negligence. Importantly, the Court stopped short of providing blanket immunity to such health clubs when a waiver is signed. For instance, it is not clear whether the case allows for a lawsuit when a patron slips and falls on water in the lobby area of the health club while not engaging in any physical activity. Further, it is not clear whether or not other conditions of the property could give rise to a cause of action.

In light of the above, in the event you or a family member are injured as a result of exercise in a health club setting, it is important to seek the advise of a personal injury attorney who can provide you with proper guidance and fully protect your rights.

A recent trend has come to our attention in the realm of motor vehicle accident settlements. More than one of our clients, upon initial consultation for personal injuries related to a motor vehicle accident, has advised us that they have received and cashed checks from the other person's motor vehicle insurance carrier prior to meeting with us. These checks are generally in the $250.00 to $500.00 range. Importantly, although our clients are being told that the small payments are being provided to them for medical co-pays and deductibles, our close review of the documentation provided with the checks has revealed that the checks are being provided in exchange for a full and final settlement of any and all personal injuries.

The clients that have approached us with these checks were shocked to find out that they may have jeopardized their right to collect full and complete compensatory damages for their pain and suffering, disability and impairment, and loss of enjoyment of life by merely receiving, acknowledging and cashing these small checks when they were specifically told by the insurance companies that the checks were being provided to them for their medical co-pays and their deductibles. In this regard, New Jersey law provides that a tortfeasor will not be responsible for any medical co-pays and/or deductibles in a motor vehicle accident. As such, it is clear to us that these insurance companies were clearly misrepresenting the facts to our clients for purposes of fraudulently entering into a settlement agreement.

Fortunately, after our involvement, a majority of the insurance companies have "backed away" from their position that the case has been settled and will allow our clients' remaining personal injury claims to go forward. More astoundingly, at least one insurance company has refused to back off their position and we are presently looking into filing suit against them and all of the insurance companies that have engaged in this practice as a result of their engaging in fraud, deceit and violation of various New Jersey statutes concerning Fair Settlement Practices.

In light of all of the above, it is especially important that, if you are involved in a motor vehicle accident, you do not sign any paperwork provided to you by the other driver's insurance company, or cash any checks provided to you by them, before speaking to a lawyer qualified in the area of personal injury litigation. While generally checks payable to body shops for property damage and checks payable directly to you for vehicles which have been totaled as a result of the accident are safe to sign and/or deposit, we suggest speaking to an attorney first.