Trial lawyers in New Jersey, beware. The state Supreme Court has ruled that a trial judge can determine whether evidence submitted is "scientifically reliable," or not.
That might not seem earthshaking. But until this decision, accident victims in New Jersey didn't have to do much to win a lawsuit alleging that the incident resulted in permanent injury, and collect a big judgment.
In many cases, they merely needed to find a medical "expert" to testify to the existence of permanent injury, and that the accident caused the injury. Once they did so, a defendant had only a narrow right to submit scientific evidence suggesting that the injury was in fact, not permanent.
That's no longer the case in New Jersey. Last month, in a unanimous ruling, the state Supreme Court ruled that a trial judge overseeing a lawsuit based on a claim of permanent injury in a low-speed vehicle collision property admitted expert testimony based on data from low-impact crashes. According to a defense witness, the data, taken from 17 studies over a 30-year period, suggested that the crash didn't cause the victim's degenerative disc disease.
The jury agreed. And instead of delivering a jackpot to the victim, the jury awarded her a relatively paltry US$50,000.
That's still a substantial sum of money, but it's not enough to get trial lawyers excited when they encounter a potential client injured in a low-speed car crash.
Perhaps in its own small way, this decision will spur other states to rein in the often-frivolous claims made in low-speed accidents.
I suspect there's not much of a risk that trial lawyers in New Jersey—or any other state—will seek out new careers due to this decision. We can only hope.
Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann
Comments