Summary
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that excerpts from settling defendants’ interrogatory answers and corporate representative depositions were admissible as statements against interest under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25). The evidence, together with other trial evidence, established a prima facie basis for allocating fault to the settling defendants in an asbestos product-liability action. The Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court’s judgment based on the jury’s allocation of fault.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether excerpts from settling defendants' certified interrogatory answers and corporate-representative deposition testimony were admissible under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25) as statements against interest.
- Whether a non-settling defendant may present evidence supporting allocation of fault to settling defendants under New Jersey's Comparative Negligence Act and Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law.
- Whether the trial court properly submitted allocation of fault to the jury and whether the jury's allocation should remain undisturbed.
Holdings
- Excerpts from the settling defendants' interrogatory answers and corporate-representative depositions were admissible as statements against interest under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25).
- For purposes of N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25), the declarant of certified interrogatory answers and corporate-representative deposition testimony is the settling defendant corporation, not the individual officer, employee, or witness who certified or gave the responses.
- A non-settling defendant may seek allocation of a percentage of fault to a settling defendant, and the trial court may submit that issue to the jury when the non-settling defendant provides timely notice and prima facie evidence supporting claims against the settling defendant.
- The trial court properly allowed Universal to present proofs supporting apportionment of fault to the settling defendants, and the jury's allocation was left undisturbed.
Key quotations
“We hold that the disputed excerpts from the settling defendants’ interrogatory answers and corporate representative depositions were admissible as statements against interest under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25).” (5-6)
“The trial court properly allowed Universal to present its proofs in support of apportionment of fault to the settling defendants. It was the jury’s province to accept or reject those proofs, and we leave its verdict undisturbed.” (40)
“The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed, and the trial court’s judgment is reinstated.” (41)
Factual background
Ronald Rowe alleged that he developed mesothelioma after decades of exposure to asbestos-containing automotive and heating products, including boilers, furnaces, burners, pumps, valves, insulation, gaskets, brakes, clutches, and furnace cement. Plaintiffs sued twenty-seven defendants, alleging strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and related claims. Eight defendants settled before trial, and the remaining defendant, Universal, sought to introduce the settling defendants' certified interrogatory answers and corporate-representative deposition testimony to support apportionment of fault. The jury found Universal liable, allocated twenty percent of the fault to Universal and the remainder among the eight settling defendants, and the trial court molded the judgment accordingly.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants alleging that Ronald Rowe developed mesothelioma from asbestos exposure. Eight defendants settled before trial, leaving Universal as the sole remaining defendant. The trial court admitted portions of the settling defendants' interrogatory answers and corporate-representative deposition testimony, allowed the jury to apportion fault to those defendants, and molded judgment according to the jury's allocation. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a new trial on apportionment. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court judgment.
Remand instructions
The Appellate Division judgment was reversed, and the trial court judgment was reinstated. No further remand instructions were issued.