Robert L. Clifford

In State v. Martini, the defendant was convicted of kidnapping and murdering a businessman for ransom and received a death sentence for the purposeful murder. The New Jersey Supreme Court conducted a proportionality review under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3e to determine whether the death sentence was disproportionate compared to sentences in similar cases. Using frequency analysis of death-eligible cases and a precedent-seeking comparison of aggravating and mitigating factors in kidnapping and pecuniary-motive murders, the Court found the sentence was not disproportionate. The decision affirmed the death penalty after examining categories such as stranger and non-stranger kidnappings and contract killings.

criminal law

The case concerned whether a pedestrian shot and severely injured in a drive-by shooting could recover personal-injury-protection (PIP) benefits under his father's automobile insurance policy. The trial court and Appellate Division denied coverage, ruling that the connection between the automobile and the injury was too attenuated. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statutory language covering bodily injury to a pedestrian caused by an object propelled from an automobile applied and that a substantial nexus existed because the vehicle was used to commit and escape the shooting. The court based its decision on the plain terms of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4 and prior precedent applying a substantial-nexus test to PIP claims.

criminal lawtorts & liability

In this personal-injury case arising from a multi-vehicle collision, plaintiffs settled with one defendant for $100,000 before trial; a jury later found that defendant not liable and held the remaining defendant 100% at fault, awarding plaintiffs a total of $45,000 in damages. The trial court and Appellate Division applied New Jersey’s collateral-source statute (N.J.S.A. 2A:15-97) to deduct the full settlement amount from the verdict, resulting in a zero recovery for plaintiffs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute’s reference to “benefits” from sources “other than a joint tortfeasor” does not encompass settlement proceeds from a party the jury determines bears no liability. The Court reasoned that the Legislature intended only to abrogate the common-law collateral-source rule for duplicative payments such as insurance benefits, not to alter comparative-negligence principles that require each tortfeasor to pay according to its percentage of fault. Accordingly, the non-settling defendant remains liable for the full verdict minus the plaintiffs’ PIP benefits.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned anti-abortion protesters who picketed outside the home of a physician who performed abortions and his family, prompting the plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief for trespass, invasion of privacy, and related claims. After the New Jersey Supreme Court initially upheld a 300-foot buffer zone around the residence as a valid time, place, and manner restriction, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated that decision and remanded for reconsideration under Madsen v. Women’s Health Center. On remand, the court modified the injunction to prohibit picketing within 100 feet of the property line, limit groups to ten people for one hour every two weeks, and require 24-hour advance notice to police. The court reasoned that these narrower limits were the minimum necessary to safeguard the residents’ privacy interests without unduly restricting the protesters’ ability to convey their message.

free speechabortion

The case involved the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund, which had paid PIP benefits to two passengers injured in a collision between an uninsured vehicle and one insured by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company. The Fund sued NJM seeking subrogation or reimbursement for those payments under provisions of the UCJF Law and the No-Fault Law. The Law Division granted summary judgment to NJM, the Appellate Division affirmed, and the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed as well. The court held that neither the relevant statutes (including N.J.S.A. 39:6-86.6 and N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1) nor prior case law created a right for the Fund to recover PIP payments from the tortfeasor's insurer. The reasoning centered on the statutory scheme's design, the Fund's funding mechanism through insurer assessments, the absence of legislative authorization for such recovery, and the goal of limiting fault-based litigation in the no-fault system.

torts & liability

The case arose from a 1988 car accident in which plaintiff Susan Molnar and defendant Douglas Hedden were both injured. Molnar filed a personal-injury suit against Hedden shortly before the two-year statute of limitations expired, and Hedden answered without asserting a counterclaim; after the parties settled Molnar's claim and the action was dismissed, Hedden sought to amend his answer to add his own personal-injury counterclaim. The trial court denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the counterclaim could relate back under Rule 4:9-3 because the underlying action remained pending. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, concluding that nothing remained of the original action to which the counterclaim could relate back once the statute of limitations had run, rendering the relation-back doctrine inapplicable.

proceduretorts & liability