Glassman v. Friedel
| Citation | 265 A.3d 84,249 N.J. 199 |
| Decision Date | 23 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 085273,A-48/49/50/51 September Term 2020 |
| Parties | Todd B. GLASSMAN, as Executor of the Estate of Jennifer K. Collum-Glassman, deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Steven P. FRIEDEL, M.D., Charles W. Farrell, M.D., Lon Weiner, M.D., Natacha Field, R.N., Tanya Gooden, R.N., Constance MacKay, R.N., Anuradha Thalasila, M.D., and Hackensack Meridian Health d/b/a Riverview Medical Center, Defendants-Appellants, and Juanito's Inc. and KLE Properties, LLC, Defendants. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
John M. Hockin, Jr., Tinton Falls, NJ, argued the cause for appellants Natacha Field, R.N., Tanya Gooden, R.N., and Hackensack Meridian Health d/b/a Riverview Medical Center (Ronan, Tuzzio & Giannone, attorneys; Anthony M. Tracy, of counsel and on the brief).
Michael R. Ricciardulli argued the cause for appellant Anuradha Thalasila, M.D. (Ruprecht Hart Ricciardulli & Sherman, attorneys; Michael R. Ricciardulli, Westfield, NJ, of counsel and on the brief, and Louis A. Ruprecht, Westfield, NJ, on the brief).
Herbert Kruttschnitt, III argued the cause for appellant Constance MacKay, R.N. (Dughi, Hewit & Domalewski, attorneys; Herbert Kruttschnitt, III, of counsel, Brick, NJ, and Ryan A. Notarangelo, on the brief).
Michael G. Halpin argued the cause for appellant Charles W. Farrell, M.D. (Grossman, Heavey & Halpin, attorneys; Michael G. Halpin, of counsel and on the brief).
Christina Vassiliou Harvey argued the cause for respondent (Lomurro, Munson, Comer, Brown & Schottland; attorneys; Christina Vassiliou Harvey, Freehold, NJ, of counsel and on the brief, Jonathan H. Lomurro, Freehold, NJ, of counsel, and Alan J. Weinberg, on the brief).
In this appeal, we address the allocation of damages in cases in which a plaintiff asserts claims against successive tortfeasors and settles with the initial tortfeasors before trial.
Plaintiff Todd B. Glassman, as Executor of the Estate of Jennifer K. Collum-Glassman, his wife, filed a wrongful death and survival action against the owners of a restaurant where Collum-Glassman fractured her ankle
. He alleged that the property owners’ negligence caused Collum-Glassman's accident, which in turn caused her pulmonary embolism
and death a month later. Plaintiff also asserted wrongful death and survival claims against physicians and nurses who treated Collum-Glassman for her ankle injury and the hospital that employed them, contending that Collum-Glassman's pulmonary embolism and death resulted from medical malpractice. Plaintiff thus claimed that Collum-Glassman's injuries and death resulted from two independent events that occurred at different times and were caused by distinct groups of tortfeasors.
After plaintiff settled his claims against the property owners, the trial court granted the non-settling medical malpractice defendants’ pretrial motion for a pro tanto credit1 based on the amount plaintiff received in his settlement, pursuant to the Appellate Division's opinion in Ciluffo v. Middlesex General Hospital, 146 N.J. Super. 476, 481-83, 370 A.2d 57 (App. Div. 1977).
The Appellate Division granted plaintiff's motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal, and reversed the trial court's determination. Glassman v. Friedel, 465 N.J. Super. 436, 445-46, 243 A.3d 1268 (App. Div. 2020). In its opinion, the Appellate Division rejected the application of the Ciluffo pro tanto credit to successive-tortfeasor cases in light of the Legislature's enactment of the Comparative Negligence Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1 to -5.8. The Appellate Division ordered that the trial court charge the jury to apportion the damages between the two successive causative events on which plaintiff premised his claims, Collum-Glassman's initial accident and the alleged medical malpractice. See id. at 446-69, 243 A.3d 1268.
We granted leave to appeal, and we now modify and affirm the Appellate Division's decision. We agree with the Appellate Division that the Ciluffo pro tanto credit does not further the legislative intent expressed in the Comparative Negligence Act and does not reflect developments in our case law over the past four decades. In its stead, we set forth a procedure to apportion any damages assessed in the trial of this case and future successive-tortfeasor cases in which the plaintiff settles with the initial tortfeasors prior to trial.
On March 25, 2017, Collum-Glassman, a forty-five-year-old special education teacher, visited Juanito's, a Red Bank restaurant, to buy take-out food for her family. According to plaintiff, Juanito's was owned and operated by defendants Juanito's, Inc., and KLE Properties, LLC (collectively, the Property Defendants).
As Collum-Glassman left the restaurant, she tripped and fell in the doorway, sustaining a comminuted trimalleolar fracture
of her left ankle. She was hospitalized at Hackensack Meridian Health d/b/a Riverview Medical Center (Riverview) and treated by seven medical professionals affiliated with Riverview: Steven P. Friedel, M.D.; Lon Weiner, M.D.; Charles W. Farrell, M.D.; Anuradha Thalasila, M.D.; Natacha Field, R.N.; Tanya Gooden, R.N.; and Constance MacKay, R.N. (collectively, the Medical Defendants).
On March 30, 2017, defendants Weiner and Friedel conducted an open reduction internal fixation of Collum-Glassman's left ankle. On April 19, 2017, three weeks after the surgery, Riverview discharged Collum-Glassman.
On April 26, 2017, Collum-Glassman suffered a pulmonary embolism
and died. According to plaintiff's answers to interrogatories, an autopsy revealed that the cause of death was "[s]addle pulmonary embolism due to immobilization following fractures of left ankle due to fall."
On June 28, 2018, plaintiff filed a wrongful death and survival action against the Property Defendants. Plaintiff alleged that the Property Defendants "did own, control, inspect, maintain, clean and repair" Juanito's on the date of Collum-Glassman's accident, that they "did carelessly and negligently control, inspect and maintain the aforesaid premises," and that, as a result of the defendants’ negligence, Collum-Glassman "suffered severe injuries ultimately leading to her death."
In discovery, plaintiff's counsel served the expert report of a forensic economist on counsel for the Property Defendants. The expert opined that as a result of Collum-Glassman's death, plaintiff suffered economic loss in the amount of $2,349,278, consisting of lost earnings, health coverage, pension benefits, and services.
In an amended complaint, plaintiff reiterated his wrongful death and survival claims against the Property Defendants. He also asserted wrongful death and survival claims against defendants Riverview, Friedel, Weiner, Farrell, Field, Gooden, and McKay, alleging that each defendant negligently violated and deviated from the standard of care and was otherwise negligent and careless in treating Collum-Glassman. Plaintiff alleged that Collum-Glassman suffered an injury to her right leg during surgery performed on her left ankle, and that she "sustained severe, painful bodily injuries, which necessitated her obtaining additional medical treatment, caused her great pain and suffering and incapacitated her until her death." In a second amended complaint, plaintiff asserted similar claims against defendant Thalasila.
In their answers, the Medical Defendants asserted affirmative defenses based on comparative negligence and crossclaims for contribution and indemnification against the other defendants. Each defendant provided notice of intent to seek an allocation of fault pursuant to Rule 4:7-5(c) against any settling defendant in the event that the plaintiff settled his claims against one or more defendants prior to trial.
On September 11, 2019, counsel for plaintiff and counsel for the Property Defendants filed a stipulation of dismissal, stating that plaintiff had settled his claims against those defendants. In an application seeking an apportionment hearing and the appointment of a law guardian for plaintiff's minor child, plaintiff's counsel disclosed that KLE Properties had agreed to pay $1,150,000 to plaintiff in settlement of plaintiff's claims against the Property Defendants.
The Medical Defendants then moved before the trial court for an order "to establish the principles espoused in Ciluffo regarding successor liability." The court granted each defendant's application, stating that "the principles set forth in [ Ciluffo ] shall apply to this case." It ordered that "if the settlement of [the Property Defendants] exceeds the total provable damages found by the jury, plaintiff will not be entitled to any compensation" from each defendant. The trial court further ruled that "if the settlement of [the Property Defendants] exceeds the total provable damages found by the jury minus the damages found to be attributable" to a specific defendant, "then the amount of this excess shall be credited against the award payable by" that defendant. Finally, the court ordered that "if the settlement of [the Property Defendants] is less than the total provable damages found by the jury minus the damages found to be attributable" to a specific defendant, then "plaintiff shall be permitted to recover the full amount assessed" to that defendant. The court provided hypothetical examples illustrating the manner in which the pro tanto credit would be calculated, depending upon the court's determination of the settling parties’ intent and the verdict at trial.
Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, arguing that the trial court's orders were in essence a grant of summary judgment notwithstanding the existence of genuine issues of material fact. He also asserted that the court had improperly applied the principles of Ciluffo.
The trial court rejected plaintiff's arguments and denied reconsideration. The court reasoned that its orders ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoelz v. Bowers
...436, 446–47, 243 A.3d 1268 (App. Div. 2020) (citing Blazovic v. Andrich, 124 N.J. 90, 103, 590 A.2d 222 (1991) ), aff'd as mod., 249 N.J. 199, 265 A.3d 84 (2021).The JTCL gave tortfeasors the right of contribution from fellow joint tortfeasors. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-2. Under the JTCL, "if one of ......
-
Liberty Ins. Corp. v. Techdan, LLC
...of the fault of each tortfeasor and, in cases involving contributory negligence, the fault of the plaintiff." Glassman v. Friedel, 249 N.J. 199, 219-20 (2021). Under the CNA, the court instructs the factfinder to make the following findings: (1) The amount of damages which would be recovera......
-
Pulte Homes of N.J., Ltd. P'ship v. Cuntis, Inc.
...1:36-3. The sole published case is from a federal court in Illinois and is not binding on this court. Meanwhile, plaintiff relies heavily on Glassman, where Supreme Court established a two-step apportionment procedure in successive tortfeasor cases where the plaintiff has settled with the i......