Sikes v. Township of Rockaway

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
• Citation: 635 A.2d 1004,269 N.J.Super. 463
• Parties: Donald R. SIKES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP OF ROCKAWAY, and John C. Doll, Jr., Defendants-Respondents.
• Decision Date: 05 January 1994

Page 463

269 N.J.Super. 463 635 A.2d 1004 Donald R. SIKES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF ROCKAWAY, and John C. Doll, Jr., Defendants-Respondents. Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division. Argued Nov. 9, 1993.
Decided Jan. 5, 1994.

[635 A.2d 1005]

Page 464

Paul M. Selitto, Denville, argued the cause, for appellant (Pitman, Senesky, Nicola & Selitto, attorneys; Mr. Selitto, on the brief).

James J. Higgins, Morristown, argued the cause, for respondents (Boyar, Higgins & Suozzo, attorneys; Mr. Higgins, on the brief).

Before Judges SKILLMAN, KESTIN and WEFING.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

SKILLMAN, J.A.D.

This appeal requires us to determine the method by which the credit for payments from collateral sources required by the Tort Claims Act should be calculated in a case where a plaintiff has been found contributorily negligent.

Page 465

Plaintiff brought suit under the Tort Claims Act for injuries he suffered when his motorcycle collided with an ambulance being operated by defendant John C. Doll, an employee of defendant Township of Rockaway. Plaintiff presented evidence at trial of $40,173.14 of medical expenses and $5,000 of lost wages for which he had been reimbursed by medical and disability insurance. A jury found both plaintiff and defendants negligent and assigned each of them 50% responsibility for the accident. The jury also returned a lump sum verdict of $150,000 for all of plaintiff's damages.

The parties disputed the proper method of molding this verdict. Defendants argued that the $150,000 jury verdict should be molded to $75,000 to reflect plaintiff's contributory negligence, and that the $45,173.14 paid by collateral sources should be deducted from this amount, yielding a net recovery to plaintiff of $29,826.86. Plaintiff argued that because he was only entitled to recover 50% of his damages due to his contributory negligence, the credit for the payments he received from collateral sources also should be reduced by 50%, thus yielding a net recovery of $52,413.43.

The trial court ruled in favor of defendants on this issue and entered judgment for plaintiff[635 A.2d 1006] in the amount of $29,826.86. Although our analysis differs somewhat from the one urged by plaintiff, we conclude that the jury verdict should have been molded to yield a net recovery to plaintiff of $52,413.43.

Before discussing the meritorious issue presented by this appeal, we must consider plaintiff's argument that the trial court committed reversible error by denying his request for special interrogatories under which the jury would have been asked to return a separate verdict for his medical expenses and lost wages. We are satisfied that this argument is not properly before us. Plaintiff's notice of appeal stated that he was appealing "regarding credit to be received under the Tort Claims Act." Plaintiff sent a letter to the clerk of this court, dated December 7, 1992, reiterating that "the scope of plaintiff/appellant's appeal will only include the issues raised during the motion of July 10, 1992; that is, the

Page 466

credit, if any, to be given to the defendant/respondent under the Tort Claims Act." Consistent with this limitation upon the scope of his appeal, plaintiff did not...