Newark, N.J. (September 15, 2025) - Newark Managing Partner Colin Hackett recently obtained a favorable and unusual defense verdict at the close of a seven-day trial in a motor vehicle accident case. The plaintiff's demand was seven figures the day trial started, dropping to a high six figures after the first day of testimony. The jury, however, returned the lowest six figure verdict possible and one-tenth of the demand the day trial started.
The action involved a plaintiff who was a back seat passenger in the clients' medical transport van, which was alleged to have run a red light and collided with another vehicle operated by the previously settled co-defendant. EMS responded to the accident scene and the plaintiff was transported to the hospital for evaluation. Thereafter, the thirty-five-year-old plaintiff underwent extensive medical treatment that included epidural injections, physical therapy and eventually two fusion surgeries, one to his cervical spine and one to his lumbar spine for multiple herniated discs at each level.
The plaintiff alleged and sought damages for (1) past medical expenses of $666,000 which were unpaid, (2) future medical and life care costs of $1.2 million and (3) "past and future pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life." New Jersey Rules of Court do not permit a plaintiff to request of the jury a specific sum for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. The defense put forth on behalf of the defendant clients at trial was that the plaintiff's claimed injuries and surgeries were not causally connected to the intersection accident and the plaintiff was merely an "opportunist."
Over the course of the seven-day trial 10 witnesses testified. These included two accident reconstruction experts, a bio-mechanical expert on behalf of the plaintiff, multiple medical experts from each side, an economist, life care planners, and four billing clerks from medical providers the plaintiff treated with post-accident.
Following approximately 90 minutes of deliberations the eight-person jury returned a relatively unique and favorable verdict for the firm clients. Although finding the clients 100% at fault for the occurrence – not surprising given the facts of the motor vehicle accident – the only award to the plaintiff was $110,000 for the damages line item on the verdict sheet for "past medical costs," despite the plaintiff "boarding" $660,000 in past medical costs both during trial and in their closing argument. The jury awarded $0 for the damages line item on the verdict sheet for "future medical costs," despite the plaintiff boarding $1.2 million during trial and in their closing. Finally, the jury awarded $0 for the damages line item on the verdict sheet for "pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life."
The clients had previously filed an Offer of Judgment in the amount of $250,000, which was rejected by the plaintiff. The effect of the plaintiff's rejection of the Offer of Judgment and low jury verdict is that the verdict will be reduced by all defense costs – legal fees and expert costs – incurred by the clients from the time the Offer of Judgment was made in December 2024 through and including trial. Commenting on picking of his seventh jury of this year and the trial result, Mr. Hackett stated "Chop wood, carry water....The clients were happy with the result."
For more information on this case, contact the attorneys involved. Visit our National Trial Practice page for more information on our trial capabilities.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
