|
     |
 |
Summaries of Reported Decisions
Clawans v. United States, 75 F.Supp.2d 368 (D.N.J. 1999). Represented pilot’s estate as a defendant in an action arising from the crash of a private aircraft in which the pilot and two passengers were killed. The estates of the two passengers brought wrongful death and survival claims against the pilot’s estate, the owner of the airplane, and the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the alleged negligence of air traffic controllers. The pilot’s estate, by other counsel, also sued the owner and the United States. The three decedents, as well as the aircraft owner, were citizens of New Jersey. The crash occurred in Maryland, while the alleged air traffic controller negligence took place in Virginia. The Tort Claims Act required that all claims against the United States, including cross-claims, be controlled by Virginia choice of law rules, which, in turn, required the application of Maryland law. The Court ruled that New Jersey law would govern damages matters. The disputed issue involved the law to be applied to cross-claims for contribution between the non-governmental defendants. The plaintiffs and the owner argued that New Jersey law, which apportions liability based on actual degree of fault, should control, while the pilot’s estate sought the application of Maryland law, which allocates fault on a pro rata basis. The Court ruled in favor of the pilot’s estate, reasoning that application of Maryland law to all cross-claims among all of the defendants would "result in ‘certainty, predictability and uniformity of result[.]’" Nieminen v. Breeze-Eastern, a Division of Transtechnology Corporation, 736 F.Supp. 580 (D.N.J. 1990). Represented the widow of a member of the Finnish armed forces who fell to his death when the hoist mechanism on a Finnish Air Force helicopter failed. The widow sued the American hoist manufacturer in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in the Newark vicinage. The defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing that Finland was the most convenient and appropriate forum for the action because the plaintiff and her decedent were Finnish citizens and the accident in question occurred in Finland. The Court denied the motion, accepting the plaintiff’s argument that her choice of forum must be afforded deference and that it was also convenient in view of the fact that the allegedly defective hoist had been manufactured just ten miles from the courthouse at the manufacturer’s plant in Union. Carroll v. United Air Lines, Inc., 325 N.J.Super. 353, 739 A.2d 442 (App.Div. 1999). Represented air carrier in action brought by passenger for personal injury allegedly incurred while deplaning in Osaka, Japan. Plaintiff, a paraplegic, was being assisted from the aircraft in an aisle chair by an employee of a Japanese company with which the air carrier had contracted to provide such services for disabled passengers. The plaintiff was a New Jersey resident who had purchased a round trip ticket in New Jersey for passage from Newark to Osaka and back. He claimed that he was injured when the aisle chair tipped over, and he sued the air carrier in New Jersey state court. The air carrier commenced a third party action against the Japanese company, which moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, and the Japanese company appealed. The Appellate Division held that the Warsaw Convention gave the New Jersey court subject matter jurisdiction and remanded the matter for jurisdictional discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction. In re Consolidated Parlodel Litigation, 22 F.Supp.2d 320 (D.N.J. 1998). Represented drug manufacturer in 14 products liability actions brought by plaintiffs from various parts of the United States. The law firm representing all of the plaintiffs had consolidated the actions in the District of New Jersey. The court granted the manufacturer’s motion to transfer each case to the "home" district of each plaintiff. Baptiste v. Northfield Foundry & Machine Co. , 184 A.D.2d 841, 584 N.Y.S.2d 221 (3d Dep’t. 1992). Represented manufacturer of industrial table saw. Plaintiff, who was injured while using the saw with the blade guard removed, alleged that such misuse was foreseeable and that the manufacturer had failed to warn of the danger involved. Since the plaintiff had testified at his deposition that he had been aware that using the saw without the guard was dangerous, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the manufacturer on the grounds that the absence of a warning was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. In re Niles, 176 N.J. 282, 823 A.2d 1 (2003). Represented beneficiary of three testamentary trusts in suit brought by original trustee and beneficiary against successor trustee and his parent, who had persuaded octogenarian testator and trust settlor to replace original trustee and to change her will and trust beneficiaries. The trial court removed the successor trustee, found undue influence on the part of the successor trustee and his parent, and reinstated the original testamentary documents. The court partially granted the plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees but denied the request for fees that had been charged against the estate by the prior trustee and other parties. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs’ cross-petition for certification and held: (1) as a matter of first impression, attorney fees incurred by plaintiffs were recoverable under exception to American rule; (2) attorney fees charged to estate by third parties were recoverable as consequential damages to estate resulting from successor trustee’s breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) parent was jointly and severally liable with successor trustee. |
 |
38 Bissell Road P.O. BOX 559 Lebanon, New Jersey 08833-0559 (908-287-2601) fax (908-287-2602) blslaw@aol.com |