Appellate Division Upholds Jury Verdict of Zero Damages After Defendants Stipulated to Liability

Plaintiff Christopher Casucci was rear ended by the defendants’ commercial vehicle driven by defendant Kevin Valan and owned by Marascio Brothers Electric. The collision was a minor impact but plaintiff claimed to have suffered neck pain, headaches and tingling in his hands as a result of the accident.  The issue in Casucci v. Valan, 2022 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1833 (App. Div. Oct. 5, 2022), was whether the jury’s verdict of zero damages should be upheld in light of the defendants’ stipulation to liability before trial.

At the time of the accident, plaintiff was wearing a seat belt and his body did not strike any part of the car.  He admitted that the impact was minor.  At the scene, he did not request an ambulance or any treatment.  He began seeing a chiropractor about one month later, who he had previously seen for low back pain.  He treated for three months and reported improvement.   He saw an orthopedist three times over a one year period and he had an MRI.  The orthopedist noted that the plaintiff’s cervical range of motion lacked five degrees but was otherwise “normal.”

Before the trial, the defendants admitted liability for causing the accident and stipulated that the only issue before the jury was whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to damages.  Both parties presented expert testimony concerning plaintiff’s injuries suffered in the accident.  While the plaintiff’s expert opined that the plaintiff injured his neck and suffered a disc herniation, on cross examination, he conceded that the plaintiff suffered from pre-existing arthritis which may have caused the herniation.  He could find no objective evidence of the tingling sensation that the plaintiff complained of in his hands for objective testing.  On the flip side, the defendants’ expert opined that the plaintiff suffered a soft tissue sprain.  He was also unable to find objective evidence of the tingling.  After he reviewed the MRI, he opined that the disc herniation was the result of the plaintiff’s longstanding degenerative disease and there was no evidence of a permanent injury caused by the accident.

At trial, plaintiff requested that the trial court judge grant a directed verdict on proximate cause.  He argued that both doctors testified that there are injuries in this case and that the proposed verdict sheet asked the jury only the quantum of damages, not proximate cause.  Plaintiff argued that the jury could not award zero damages because all of the evidence clearly demonstrated that there was an injury.

The defendants, however, argued that the jury could make credibility determinations of the witnesses and reject all the testimony and determine that there was no compensable injury.  They argued that the jury could conclude that there was an injury from the accident but it was not worth any amount of compensation. 

The trial court judge denied the request for a directed verdict.  He noted that, although defendants had stipulated to liability, their expert’s testimony was not dispositive of whether the plaintiff had suffered an injury.  The defense expert saw the plaintiff two years after the accident and his opinion was that “I think he has suffered a soft tissue strain of his cervical spine.”   

Upon appeal, the Appellate Division noted that given these “qualified statements, the trial court correctly found the jury was free to reject all or some of his testimony.” The Court found that proximate cause is ordinarily a fact issue to be resolved by a jury.  Further, it noted that there was sufficient evidence in the record to submit the question of whether plaintiff’s current physical condition was proximately caused by the accident.  Thus, the Court found that the trial court properly denied the motion for a directed verdict, allowing the issue to go to the jury.

The Appellate Division also noted that the defendants’ stipulation as to liability did not include a stipulation as to proximate cause or damages.  Further, the Court stated that “[a] jury is always at liberty to find that there are no compensable damages sustained as a result of the accident, even if both experts admit an injury was sustained.”  The Appellate Division found that a jury did have “substantial, credible evidence to determine plaintiff did not suffer compensable injury.”  The jury could reasonably determine that plaintiff suffered a mild injury that had resolved itself based upon the evidence presented. 

Further, it held that “a jury has no obligation to award positive damages where it has determined a plaintiff’s injuries, although they may never vanish, are not sufficiently pronounced to warrant financial recovery.” The Court stated that the law does not require a remedy for a de minimis harm.

In reviewing the evidence, the Appellate Division found that the jury’s award was reasonable.  It noted that there was a minimal impact based upon the dash cam video, the plaintiff was able to drive away and did not seek treatment for nearly a month, he had limited treatment after the accident, he had previous treatments with a chiropractor for back pain, both experts were unable to point to any objective evidence of a self-reported symptom, defendant’s expert opined that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by his degenerative disease and that plaintiff did not suffer permanent injury as a result of the accident. 

Thus, the Appellate Division ruled that the jury did have “an ample reasonable basis” to find that the plaintiff did not suffer a compensable injury due to the accident.  Thus, the Court found that the trial judge properly denied plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict on proximate cause and properly submitted the issue to the jury for the jury to decide if plaintiff’s injuries merited compensation. 

Tags: automobile accident, damages