LEGAL VICTORY: MINTZER SAROWITZ ZERIS & WILLIS SECURES SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN COMPLEX WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL CASE

Attorneys Alexander Krasnitsky and Paul Jenkins of Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris & Willis’s New Jersey office recently achieved a significant legal victory for a Maryland trucking company. The case, a wrongful death and survival action stemming from a tragic accident on the New Jersey Turnpike, involved intricate choice of law issues and a comprehensive comparison of both Tort and Workers’ Compensation laws in New Jersey and Maryland.

 

Case Background

The lawsuit was filed by the estate of a trucking company employee who lost his life in the accident. The plaintiff sought to pursue a tort action against our client under the “intentional wrong” exception to Workers’ Compensation immunity.

Legal Strategy and Argumentation

Our defense centered on two key arguments:

1. Maryland, and not New Jersey, law should apply to the case, and
2. The tort action was barred under Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Act, as the plaintiff had already collected Workers’ Compensation benefits in Maryland.

This strategy highlighted a crucial difference between Maryland and New Jersey law. Maryland is among the few states that require injured employees to choose between collecting Workers’ Compensation benefits and filing an “intentional wrong” tort action against the employer – an “exclusive remedy” as argued by the defense. In contrast, New Jersey allows employees to pursue both remedies.

Judicial Process and Outcome

After multiple extended oral argument sessions and requests for supplemental briefs on specific legal issues, Burlington County Judge Eric G. Fikry delivered a comprehensive opinion. The judge granted our client’s motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety.

Implications and Aftermath

This ruling highlights the complexities of Tort and Workers’ Compensation laws, particularly in cases involving interstate jurisdictional issues. It demonstrates the critical importance of carefully navigating choice of law questions and understanding the nuances of different states’ various statutes.

The decision underscores the potential impact of prior benefit elections on subsequent legal actions, especially in states like Maryland where such choices can be binding. Notably, no appeal was filed following the decision, bringing finality to this particular legal dispute.

While the legal proceedings have concluded, the case continues to have broader implications. The decedent’s family is now channeling their efforts towards enacting trucking safety legislation in Maryland in honor of their loved one. This initiative could potentially influence future industry standards and regulations, extending the impact of this case beyond the courtroom.

This outcome serves as a reminder of the intricate interplay between state laws in both tort and Workers’ Compensation cases and the importance of comprehensive legal strategies in navigating these complex scenarios.