Wrongful Death in New Jersey - Not Today
One of the final legislative acts of 2006-2007 session was the passage of a Wrongful Death bill (S-176) that expanded the damages recoverable under the Wrongful Death statute from pecuniary losses only to damages arising out of mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society and loss of consortium.
Because only pecuniary losses were available, the Wrongful Death statute was criticized for measuring an individual’s worth by his or her financial contributions to a family and, in practice, failing to assign a value to the lives of children, the elderly and those who worked within the home. On the other hand, the Act eased the financial strain that an unexpected death could cause a family, and judicial interpretations of the statute allowed an estate to recover the monetary value of services provided, for example, by those who worked inside the home (such as accounting expenses if the deceased handled the bills or the prospective cost of maid and landscaping services if the deceased took care of the home) and those who provided valuable counseling services (such as psychiatric expenses if the deceased provided comparable services or expenses for a business advisor if the deceased had previously been relied upon to provide such advice).
Despite passing the Senate and Assembly, Governor Corzine vetoed the bill, expressing concern that unlimited damages based on emotional anguish or pain and suffering could have a significant impact on state and local budgets. Indeed, it was reported that 544 wrongful death claims were asserted against departments and agencies of the State between 1996 and June 2007.
Governor Corzine further expressed concern that the bill might chill business development in the state, deterring businesses from coming to or staying in New Jersey. In this regard, many opposed to the bill were especially concerned with the already exorbitant costs of liability insurance for obstetricians, who thus far had been practically insulated from wrongful death liability for deaths arising out of complications during pregnancies or childbirth. The Governor suggested the Legislature continue its efforts to reform the Wrongful Death statute to avoid using a strict monetary valuation of a person’s life while also addressing the adverse effect of allowing unlimited and unpredictable damages.
The Governor suggested the Legislature provide for governmental immunity, more flexibility of the judiciary to reduce excessive non-pecuniary damages award, and defining “non-pecuniary damages” less expansively.
Before the Governor’s veto, the same bill was pre-introduced in the Legislature for the current 2008-2009 legislative session (which introduction would have been moot if the Governor signed the 2007-2008 bill into law). Therefore, the 2008-2009 bill is currently in the same form as it was during the 2006-2007 session, and largely as it was since it was first introduced in September 27, 2004 by Senator Joseph V. Doria, Jr. of Hudson County. No action has been taken yet to refine the bill, but such measures may occur from time to time during the upcoming session.
This blog will be updated as new activity on this topic occurs within the Legislature.
Tags: corzine, doria, s-176, veto, wrongful death
April 21st, 2008 at 6:21 am
Jaclyn - Thanks for the update. Below is one letter sent in opposition to the Bill the Governor vetoed. Obviously, many people expressed similar concerns. In particular, I assume that beyond the health-care providers the Governor referenced in his veto-statement, those opponents included NJ citizens who develop pharmaceuticals and other vital often life-sustaining products. I do not see how vesting the courts with “flexibility” would ultimately serve as a reasonable check on the problems this poses and would be interested in any elaboration you have seen on that aspect. I believe Governor Corzine did the right thing in vetoing the proposed expansion of recovery and that those who seek this change should have a rigorous burden of showing by clear proof that the benefits of doing so will substantially outweigh the harm.
Letter was as follows:
“Governor Corzine:
The Bar Association supports this, but the League of Municipalities opposes it unless modified to exclude public entities from this kind of liability. That ought be enough said about why it shouldn’t be enacted into law by a Governor seeking to eliminate the burden of crushing cost of living, debt and taxes on our citizens, but there is so much more to be said.
As I the read the Bill, whenever somebody dies from a tort, if the decedent has one or more surviving spousal, direct-blood or legally-adopted relatives who experienced grief over the death, each of those survivors could now be entitled to subjective, largely-unpredictable damages. That liability would not be directly dependent on whether death was caused by an intentional murder (for which the law already provides powerful remedies to the State and punitive damages to the estate of the victim, although most murders cannot pay and there’s no insurance) or strict product liability (to be liable there is no requirement that the manufacturer of a product, including vital medical products, have any “fault”, but manufacturers are perceived as having lots of money to pay damages). Rather, it would be based on the susceptibility of the survivors to grief.
The horror stories, now newly-admissable in court, would seem limited only by the myriad and gut-wrenching ways we as human beings experience the pain associated with every death of a loved one. Acceptance of reality, emotional strength, and stoicism in the face of adversity, traditional virtues in American culture, would be disincentivized.
It’s obvious that the law cannot ameliorate the pain of death of loved ones. This law is based, plain and simply, on visions of a new and limitless pool of claims, each with their own story of grief to tell, or to defend against, which has set the Bar to salivating over fees.
As a lawyer whose business, in part, is associated with the tort system, I probably stand to make money if this Bill is passed, but, as a citizen, I believe this is a terrible idea, particularly at this time in a state with historically high insurance rates, brutal local taxes, and a dismal reputation among the business community, which also happens to be hemorrhaging productive citizens.
Please DONT sign S-176. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard Crooker”