Newark Trial Team Secures Favorable Verdict in Premises Liability Lawsuit

Newark, N.J. (March 13, 2025) - After picking three juries to date in 2025, the New Jersey Trial Team of Partners Afsha Noran and Colin Hackett received their first - and favorable - jury verdict of 2025.

In this premises liability claim, following an eight-day trial, the jury “awarded” the plaintiffs just three percent of their settlement demand the day trial started. The plaintiffs’ demand on the first day of trial was $10 million. It was reduced multiple times during the course of trial, first to $7.5 million, then $4.5 million, then $4 million, and finally to $3 million while the jury was deliberating. The defendants’ collective offer never exceeded $500,000.

Following two hours of deliberations the six-person jury – reduced from eight following the jury charge and at the plaintiffs’ request – returned a gross award to the plaintiffs of $600,000. This gross award was reduced to $360,000 due to the jury’s contributory negligence finding against the plaintiff. It is anticipated the $360,000 award will be further reduced post-verdict because, under New Jersey law, any social security disability payments and any employer benefits paid to the plaintiff as a result of an inability to work are deducted from the portion of the verdict for lost wages.

The matter involved a claim brought by a fuel delivery driver and his wife (per quod claim) against two firm clients and a third defendant. The plaintiffs claimed that in June 2020 the driver was injured at a large New Jersey industrial site due to the negligence of the three defendants. Specifically, while standing on a platform depositing fuel into 500 gallon tanks, the platform collapsed resulting in permanent and disabling injuries to both feet and ankles. Multiple surgeries ensued and the plaintiff never returned to work, asserting an inability do so.

The defendants denied liability for the occurrence, the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries from the occurrence and any causal connection between the surgeries undergone by the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s claimed injuries from the occurrence and inability to work. During the course of the eight-day trial, the plaintiffs presented three fact witnesses and four expert witnesses – liability, vocational/employability, medical and, economic.

The defendants cross-examined at length each of the witnesses the plaintiffs presented. Further, on behalf of the clients, the Trial Team presented one fact witness and two expert witnesses, for vocational/employability/earning capacity and medical. Additionally, a surveillance video of the plaintiff was presented to the jury by the defendants, which the court commented after the verdict was “particularly damning” and “knocked out any chance of an award for future lost wages.” The jury verdict was comprised of separate awards for pain and suffering and past lost wages. Although requested by the plaintiffs and a line item on the verdict questionnaire, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $0 for future lost wages.

Commenting on the Trial Team’s first jury verdict for 2025, Ms. Noran stated, “An issue we occasionally have is trying to rationalize or explain to clients the basis for exorbitant or ridiculous settlement demands. Like in this matter, there simply is no rational basis given the facts, law and our Trial Team’s trial experience for certain settlement demands. In those instances, we are left simply stating the demand is ridiculous, it’s absurd and there is no basis given the evidence, law and our experience. We understand that this may not provide much comfort to certain clients, particularly those who are less accustomed to personal injury matters or trying cases. If asked to speculate, we advise we believe the plaintiff is banking on a general perception we believe exists with plaintiff attorneys that defendants and their insurers have a general unwillingness to try cases. That an exorbitant demand may further foster that unwillingness by increasing the perceived damages exposure to the defendant.”

Commenting on the matter, trial and jury verdict Mr. Hackett stated, “The clients and their insurers were very happy with the trial result.”

For more information on these cases, contact the attorneys involved. Visit our National Trial Practice page for more information on our trial capabilities.