Court Opinion

ID: 9533379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:31:13.733648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:02.284475
License: Public Domain

*292VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, JJ.,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
We concur in that part of the Court’s opinion modifying the instructions on substantial-factor causation in increased-risk cases. Unlike the majority, however, we would apply the modified instruction prospectively and do not believe that a third trial is warranted in this case.
Plaintiff commenced this action in September 1994. Defendant twice defended himself, and on both occasions the jury agreed that the risk of harm generated by defendant’s deviation from acceptable medical practice wa§ not a substantial factor in producing the ultimate injury. Although not perfect, the charge given in the second trial is sustainable under applicable standards. See Fischer v. Canario, 143 N.J. 235, 254, 670 A.2d 516 (1996) (instructing that no reversible error is found “where the charge, considered as a whole, adequately conveys the law and is unlikely to confuse or mislead the jury, even though part of the charge, standing alone, might be incorrect”).
In our view, the jury’s verdict was based not on confusion, but on the simple fact that jurors found defendant’s expert more persuasive on the relevant issues. After nearly eight years of litigation and two separate trials, we should not trespass on that finding. The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
For reversing and remanding — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, and ZAZZALI — 5.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part — Justices VERNIERO and LaVECCHIA — 2.