SIKES V. TOWNSHIP OF ROCKAWAY
Case Date: 10/27/1994
Docket No: SYLLABUS
|
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for
the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please
note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).
(NOTE: The Court wrote no full opinion in this case. Rather, the Court's affirmance of the
judgment of the Appellate Division is based substantially on the reasons expressed in the written
opinion of Judge Skillman below.)
Argued October 11, 1994 -- Decided October 27, 1994
PER CURIAM
Donald Sikes, Jr., was injured when his motorcycle collided with an ambulance driven by John C.
Doll, an employee of Township of Rockaway (Township). Sikes sued the Township and Doll pursuant to the
New Jersey Tort Claims Act (Act). At trial, Sikes presented evidence demonstrating medical expenses of
$40,173.14 and lost wages of $5,000 for which he had been reimbursed by medical and disability insurance.
A jury found Sikes 50" at fault and Doll and the Township 50" at fault for the accident and returned a
lump sum verdict of $150,000 for all of Sikes's damages.
On appeal, the parties dispute the appropriate method of molding the verdict. The Township and
Doll argue that the $150,000 jury verdict should be molded to $75,000 to reflect Sikes's 50" contributory
negligence, and that the $45,173.14 paid by collateral sources should be deducted from this amount, leaving a
net recovery to Sikes of $29,826.86. Sikes contends that because he was only entitled to recover 50" of his
damages as a result of his contributory negligence, the credit for the payments from collateral sources also
should be reduced by 50%, which would yield a net recovery of $52,413.43.
The trial court found for the Township and Doll on this issue and entered judgment for Sikes in the
amount of $29,826.86. Sikes appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed the decision of the trial
court on this issue. The Appellate Division panel noted that credit for payments from collateral sources is
required in cases based on the Act. In addition, a plaintiff in a case under the Act may withhold the
presentation of any evidence of damages for which payment has been received from collateral sources.
According to the Appellate Division, had Sikes utilized this approach, he would have been entitled to a
molded verdict of 50" of $104,826.86, or $52,413.43. Similarly, if Sikes's damage claims had been submitted
to the jury under separate interrogatories as requested, Sikes would also have been entitled to a molded
verdict of $52,413.43. Thus, the Appellate Division was unable to perceive in reason in the policy of the Act
why the calculation of the credit for payments from collateral sources should be different simply because the
jury returned a lump sum verdict that included stipulated medical expenses and wage losses received from
collateral sources.
The Appellate Division also noted that the deduction from the jury verdict of the payments Sikes
received from collateral sources before molding the verdict to reflect Sikes's contributory negligence is
required to preserve Sikes's contractual rights to those insurance proceeds. The court found that the trial
court's method of calculation effectively deprives Sikes of the 50" of the medical and disability insurance
benefits to which he was contractually entitled. Such a result is inconsistent with the intent of the relevant
section of the Act that seeks to prevent an injured party from receiving a duplicate recovery from both his
own insurance carrier and a public entity at fault, but not to prevent him from retaining the full amount of
his contractual benefits. Moreover, allowing the injured party to retain the full amount of his contractual
insurance benefits does not result in an aggregate recovery in excess of his actual damages.
The Supreme Court granted certification.
CHIEF JUSTICE WILENTZ and JUSTICES CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK,
O'HERN, GARIBALDI and Stein join in this opinion.
DONALD R. SIKES, JR.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF ROCKAWAY and
Defendants-Appellants.
Argued October 11, 1994 -- Decided October 27, 1994
On certification to the Superior Court,
Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported
at
269 N.J. Super. 463 (1994).
James J. Higgins argued the cause for
appellant (Boyar, Higgins & Suozzo,
attorneys).
Paul M. Selitto argued the cause for
respondent (Pitman, Senesky, Nicola &
Selitto, attorneys).
PER CURIAM
The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons
expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at
269 N.J. Super. 463 (1994).
CHIEF JUSTICE WILENTZ and JUSTICES CLIFFORD, HANDLER,
POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, and STEIN join in this opinion.
NO. A-25 SEPTEMBER TERM 1994
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF ROCKAWAY and
Defendants-Appellants.
DECIDED October 27, 1994
Chief Justice Wilentz PRESIDING
|