Aug 17, 2018

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules on Offer of Judgment Rule with Multiple Defendants and Jury Charges in a Product Liability Case

In a case involving a product defect, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that evidence of a manufacturer’s conduct is irrelevant in a manufacturing defect claim, but the trial court’s failure to give a limiting instruction was harmless error; and that a single offer of judgment under R. 4:58-58 presented to multiple defendants will not bind a single defendant who’s molded share of liability is less than the offer of judgment absent some advanced notice of that consequence.  Willner v. Vertical Realty, Inc., - N.J. – (2018).

Willner was a products liability action.  Plaintiff, Josh Willner, was injured while climbing a rock wall owned by his employer and sued numerous defendants including the manufacturers of the wall and parts contained in the wall – Vertical Realty, Inc. and ASCO Numatics. 

Before trial, Willner made a single offer of judgment to the defendants in accordance with R. 4:58 in the amount of $125,000.00.  He obtained a verdict of $358,000.00 with 30% liability on Numatics and 70% liability on Vertical Realty.    

At the end of trial, the only claim left was a manufacturing defect claim.  Plaintiff requested a jury charge that the jury was not to focus on the conduct of the parties, but the trial court refused to give the charge and instead provided a charge that mirrored model jury charge 5.40B, “manufacturing defect”.  The jury returned a verdict of $358,000.00 – 30% of which was allocated to a manufacturing defect claim against Numatics.

The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s failure to charge the jury on conduct evidence and its irrelevance in a manufacturing defect claim was harmless error.

The court then addressed the Offer of Judgment Rule.  It noted that while the total verdict exceeded 120% of Willner’s $125,000.00 Offer of Judgment thus potentially triggering the Rule, Numatics’ responsibility was only $107,400.00.  Therefore, the Supreme Court held that it would be unjust to trigger the Rule’s sanctions against Numatics absent some kind of advance notice which was not given in this case.


For Schenck Price's Important Legal Alerts and Resources on COVID-19 Click Here.