News and Views
Press Release

Blank Rome LLP Wins Appeal of $10M Personal Injury Verdict in Dean v. Highland Park

On behalf of the Borough of Highland Park and the Highland Park Police Department (“Defendants”), Blank Rome successfully appealed a personal injury verdict of $8.5 million for pain and suffering and $1.5 million for loss of consortium in Dean v. Highland Park in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.

On August 12, 2008, Officer Eveleen Fitzgerald accidentally reversed her patrol car and collided with a parked truck in which Jerome Dean, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) was seated.  Following the accident, the Plaintiff began experiencing severe pain, which caused him to miss two weeks of work as an engineering inspector of underground utilities and road construction.  Pursuant to an MRI, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with four herniated discs and began physical therapy.  The pain became severe enough that it impeded the Plaintiff from participating in his usual everyday activities.  In April 2010, the Plaintiff underwent spinal fusion surgery.  He returned to work after several months, but was no longer capable of performing his former job responsibilities.

The Plaintiff sued the Defendants and his wife sought per quod damages.  After the Plaintiff was granted summary judgment on the issue of Defendants' liability, the matter proceeded to a damages only trial where the jury awarded the Plaintiff a total sum of $10 million.  The verdict amount did not include economic losses, for which no claim was made.

The Blank Rome team, led by Stephen M. Orlofsky, Adrienne C. Rogove, and Stephen E. Gross, filed an appeal stating that the verdict was excessive in light of the Plaintiff’s injuries and that the trial court erred in failing to apply the appropriate analysis to the Defendants’ motion for a new trial or for remittitur of the verdict.  The appropriate remittitur analysis was articulated by the Supreme Court in He v. Miller, 207 N.J. 230 (2011).  This analysis requires the trial court to consider its own expertise and experience in trying similar cases, and to conduct a complete and searching analysis of comparable case verdicts to determine whether the award is wide of the mark and shocks the judicial conscience. 

Blank Rome argued, and the Appellate Division agreed, that the trial court failed to give any consideration to the wide range of verdicts considered acceptable and appropriate in comparable cases, even when acknowledging his limited background and experience in this area of the law.  The Appellate Division vacated the verdict, and remanded the case, directing the trial court to engage in the He v. Miller comparative analysis of cases of which it is aware, and/or brought to its attention by the parties challenging or supporting the verdict.