Major Car Accident Verdict in the NJ State Supreme Court won by Franklin Solomon of Weitz & Luxenberg
Christina DiProspero v. Barbara J. Penn, et al. (A-66-03)

This is part 4 of major car collision verdict won by Franklin Solomon of Weitz & Luxenberg.

IV.

We first observe that “the Legislature is presumed to be aware of judicial construction of its enactments, ” N.J.Democratic Party, Inc. v. Samson, 175 N.J. 178, 195 n.6 (2002) (citing Brewer v. Porch, 53 N.J. 167, 174 (1969)),and that “a change of language in a statute ordinarily implies a purposeful alteration in [the] substance of the law, ”Nagy v. Ford Motor Co., 6 N.J. 341, 348 (1951) (internal quotations omitted). By those canons of statutoryconstruction, we start with the presumption that the Legislature was aware of the Oswin decision and that itconsciously omitted the serious life impact standard as a condition for recovery of pain and suffering damages.

We hardly need state that the Legislature knows how to incorporate into a new statute a standard articulated in aprior opinion of this Court. See, e.g., In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 343 (1999) (noting thatLegislature codified “best interests of the child ” standard from Court ’s holding in N.J. Div. of Youth & FamilyServs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986), into N.J.S.A. 30:4C- 15.1(a)); Civalier v. Estate of Trancucci, 138 N.J. 52, 60(1994) (noting that Legislature codified Court ’s holding in Hoy v. Capelli, 48 N.J. 81 (1966), when it adopted N.J.S.A. 59:4- 5 and codified Court ’s holding in Bergen v. Koppenal, 52 N.J. 478 (1968), when it adopted N.J.S.A.59:4- 4); Debell v. Bd. of Trs., Pub. Employees ’ Ret. Sys., 357 N.J. Super. 461, 463 (App. Div. 2003) (noting thatLegislature codified Court ’s eleven- factor test for determining when civil servant forfeits pension created in Uricoliv. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen ’s Ret. Sys., 91 N.J. 62 (1982) into N.J.S.A. 43:1- 3).

In enacting AICRA, the Legislature adopted Oswin ’s interpretation of the 1988 threshold requiring a plaintiff toprove a verbal threshold injury by objective credible evidence. Compare Oswin, supra, 129 N.J. at 314 (ruling that “plaintiff must show a material dispute of fact by credible, objective medical evidence ” (emphasis added)), withN.J.S.A. 39:6A- 8(a) (requiring that physician ’s certification of threshold- vaulting injury “shall be based on and referto objective clinical evidence ” (emphasis added)). The Legislature ’s explicit incorporation of one of Oswin ’sholdings (the objective medical evidence standard) into AICRA strongly implies that it consciously chose not toincorporate another of Oswin ’s holdings (the serious life impact standard). See Brodsky v. Grinnell Haulers, Inc.,181 N.J. 102, 112 (2004) ( “The canon of statutory construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius ? expression ofone thing suggests the exclusion of another left unmentioned ? sheds some light on the interpretative analysis. ”);Moses v. Moses, 140 N.J. Eq. 575, 583 (E. & A. 1947) ( “An affirmative expression ordinarily implies a negation ofany other. ”).

Previous Page |  Next Page

see also:

Part 4 Major Car Crash Verdict in New Jersey State Supreme Court
FREE Major car crash verdict information

Opinion Major Car Accident Verdict in New Jersey State Supreme Court
FREE information on New Jersey State Supreme Court major car accident verdict

Major Car Accident Verdict Major Car Accident Verdict in the NJ State Supreme Court won by Franklin Solomon
Our own Franklin Solomon in the NJ State Supreme Court won a major car accident verdict