Court Opinion

ID: 9749915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 14:05:24.741454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:59.889262
License: Public Domain

*242Jacobs, J.
(concurring in part). I agree with the Court’s disposition except insofar as it results in the award to the plaintiff of a sum in excess of the full amount of damages fixed by the jury. If, as may well be, the excess should not remain with the defendants-appellants, then it would seem more just and equitable to have it go now to the persons who took the course, highly favored in the law, of settling prior to trial. See Mong v. Hershberger, 200 Pa. Super. 68, 186 A. 2d 427 (Super. Ct. 1962). It must be borne in mind that, in the fixing of his damages, the plaintiff here received the greatest measure of protection available under our judicial system. Thus we set aside the first jury’s verdict of $65,000 and sent the matter back for a new trial limited to the issue of damages alone. We directed that the trial judge clearly inform the jurors that their verdict should represent “full and fair compensation for all the plaintiff’s damages arising out of the accident.” 40 N. J., at p. 308. There is no reason to doubt that the second jury’s verdict sympathetically fulfilled this direction. I see no justice in having the plaintiff receive more from those involved in the accident than the $165,000 fixed by the second jury and find no occasion for departing here from the generally accepted principle that one satisfaction in full is enough. See Breen v. Peck, 28 N. J. 351, 362—363 (1958); cf. Daily v. Somberg, 28 N. J. 372, 386 (1958); Moss v. Cherdak, 114 N. J. L. 332, 334 (E. & A. 1935); Brandstein v. Ironbound Transportation Co., 112 N. J. L. 585, 593 (E. & A. 1934); Spurr v. North Hudson County R. R. Co., 56 N. J. L. 346, 347 (Sup. Ct. 1894); Steger v. Egyud, 219 Md. 331, 149 A. 2d 762, 768 (1959).
I vote to modify.