Morales v. Arakaki

• Docket Number: A-2369-21
• Decision Date: 27 December 2023
• Parties: NICOLE MORALES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. IRMA R. ARAKAKI, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

1

NICOLE MORALES, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
IRMA R. ARAKAKI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-2369-21

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

December 27, 2023

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

Argued September 11, 2023

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No. DC-004194-21.

Crystal E. Colindres argued the cause for appellant (Gregory P. Helfrich &Associates, attorneys; Crystal E. Colindres, on the brief).

Nicole Morales, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

Before Judges Gilson, DeAlmeida and Berdote Byrne.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Irma R. Arakaki appeals from the December 17, 2021 judgment of the Special Civil Part entered after trial awarding plaintiff Nicole Morales

2

$4,582 in damages arising from a motor vehicle collision, as well as the court's March 25, 2022 order denying Arakaki's motion for a new trial. We reverse.

I.

Morales filed a complaint alleging that Arakaki's negligent operation of her truck at an intersection in Elizabeth caused an accident that damaged Morales's car. She sought monetary damages for the cost of repairing her car. Arakaki's answer alleged that Morales caused the collision through the negligent operation of her vehicle. Neither party alleged to have suffered physical injuries in the crash.

At trial, Morales and the passenger in her car testified. Because Morales appeared without counsel, her direct testimony, and that of her witness, consisted of answers to questions posed by the court. The witnesses described what they observed prior to and during the crash. Both attributed fault to Arakaki, who they testified was behind Morales at a red light. According to these witnesses, when the light turned green, Morales attempted to execute a right turn and when she was approximately fifty percent into the turn Arakaki drove her truck forward and into the passenger side of Morales's car.

Morales also testified that she had filed a claim with her insurance carrier for the damages caused in the accident. She was not asked, however, whether

3

the carrier had granted or denied the claim. In response to the question of why she had not repaired her car, Morales testified that she was a college student and could not "afford the bill." The entirety of Morales's testimony with respect to the amount of damages she sought was:

[Court:] So did you get - go to any business and get an estimate for the cost to repair your car

[Answer:] Yes.

[Court:] And how much will it cost to get your car repaired?

[Answer:] Four thousand five hundred.

[Court:] Okay. $4,500?

[Answer:] Yes.

[Court:] Thank you.

Morales did not identify who provided her with the estimate, what training or experience, if any, that person had, whether and how the car was inspected by the person who gave her the estimate, and what repairs were included in the estimate. Nor did the court ask Morales to produce a document or other evidence relating to the estimate.^[1]

4

At the close of Morales's case-in-chief, Arakaki moved pursuant to Rule 4:37-2(b) for an involuntary dismissal of the complaint. She argued that Morales failed to present sufficient evidence to establish: (1) a prima facie case of negligence; or (2) the quantum of damages because she proffered no expert testimony of what it would cost to repair her car.

The trial court denied the motion. The court concluded that Morales provided uncontradicted evidence that, if accepted as true, would support a jury decision that Arakaki deviated from the standard of care applicable to drivers operating vehicles on public roads. In addition, the court concluded that

plaintiff has testified without objection that the cost to repair her car is $4,500. If counsel was going to contest that that was hearsay testimony, she should have done so at the time, respectfully. However, there was no objection to the testimony, nor was there any cross-examination as to the testimony.

But giving all inferences to the plaintiff, she has proven a prima facie case of negligence as well as damages.

During her case-in-chief, Arakaki provided an account of her version of the events that resulted in the collision. She testified that hers was the first vehicle stopped at the red light. According to Arakaki, when the light turned

5

green, she proceeded straight, and Morales's car crossed in front of her truck from the left lane and struck her vehicle. Arakaki speculated that Morales had pulled into the intersection from a gas station on the corner and crossed in front of Arakaki's truck.

After her direct examination, Arakaki's counsel stated, "Your Honor, I am done questioning Ms. Arakaki." The court asked Arakaki follow-up questions and permitted Morales to conduct cross-examination.

After the close of the cross-examination, Arakaki's counsel stated, "in order to save judicial resources the defense rests its proof[s] on liability and move[s] for a direct (sic) verdict in favor of defendant ...." The court denied that motion.

As the court started to give what appeared to be its opinion after trial, Arakaki's counsel had the following exchange with the court:

[Counsel:] Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I do want to continue, depending on your decision, the motion for a direct (sic) verdict, if you're going to reserve your decision; if not, then I would like to move into evidence the estimate of repairs for Ms. Arakaki's vehicle. It's a substantial difference.

[Court:] She didn't testify to that, counsel, and so I'm not allowing it into evidence. The motion for a directed verdict is denied, and I've heard your summation, but thank you very much.

6

The court then issued its oral opinion. The court disregarded the testimony of Morales's passenger because she admitted she considered herself to be a member of Morales's family. With respect to Arakaki's testimony, the court found that there was "no possible way" the accident could have happened as she described, given the photographic evidence of the damage to the vehicles. The court found Morales provided the only credible version of how the accident took place. The court found Arakaki failed to observe the operation of Morales's car as it began to make a right turn and collided with that vehicle.

With respect to damages, the entirety of the court's opinion was:

I find for those reasons that Ms. Arakaki is responsible for the breach of a cause of action (sic) which has led to this

...