Trial Court Erred in Refusing to Consolidate Plaintiff’s Lawsuits from Two Different Accidents
The Plaintiff Telma Moraes was injured in 2 different automobile accidents that occurred almost two years apart. In the first accident, she injured her neck, back, and left knee. Less than one year after she filed a lawsuit as to the first accident, she was rear ended and again suffered injuries to her neck and back and aggravated her previous neck and back injuries. She then sued for her injuries suffered in her second accident and filed a motion to consolidate the two lawsuits. The trial court denied the motion and, in Moraes v. Didi Wesler & Simony Wesler, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS 23 (App. Div. Feb. 23, 2015), the plaintiff filed this appeal.
Court Rule 4:38-1 authorizes consolidation of actions “when actions involving a common question of law or fact arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are pending in the Superior Court, the court on a party’s or its own motion may order the actions consolidated.” A court’s decision to grant or deny a party’s motion to consolidate actions is discretionary.
The Appellate Division noted that it would not disturb a trial court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion. In Moraes, the appeals court did find that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to consolidate.
Although the liability issues involved separate question of law and fact, the liability of the respective defendant drivers appeared straightforward. Both drivers essentially admitted to be at fault from their actions.
As for damages, the actions did involve common questions of law and fact. Absent consolidation, two juries could reach inconsistent verdicts if the jury of the first case attributed the plaintiff’s continuing symptoms to the injuries she sustained in the second accident and the jury in the second case attributed the plaintiff’s continuing symptoms to permanent injuries she sustained in the first accident.
Thus, the Appellate Division found that there was no rational basis for the trial court to be concerned that the liability issues would somehow confuse the jury if tried together. Further, the trial court overlooked the possibility of inconsistent damage verdicts. Hence, the Appellate Division found that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to consolidate the cases and reversed and remanded the cases back to be consolidated for discovery and trial.
redbanknaacp
Stephen Gilbert
Tom Begley
Connect With Capehart Scatchard