Casualty

In a personal injury case, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the trial court's decision, including the jury's verdict awarding $250,000 in damages and the denial of defendant's motion for a new trial. Lekhal v. Depasquale, No. A-3024-23, 2026 LX 223242 (Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 30, 2026).

The case stems from a rear‑end collision in which the defendant struck the plaintiff’s stopped vehicle at a traffic circle. Liability was admitted before trial, leaving damages as the only issue for the jury. At trial, the plaintiff’s medical expert used an exemplar video of a cervical discectomy performed on another patient, and during closing, plaintiff’s counsel referenced defense expert reports that were not in evidence. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by: (1) allowing use of the undisclosed exemplar surgery video involving a different patient; (2) giving an inadequate curative instruction after plaintiff’s improper summation remarks; and (3) denying a mistrial. The court held that although the video should have been disclosed in discovery, its admission was not unduly prejudicial. The video was brief, silent, and used only to illustrate the expert’s testimony, and it accurately depicted the procedure the plaintiff underwent. The court distinguished cases like Rodd and Macaluso, finding no risk of misleading the jury. As to counsel’s improper summation comments, the court agreed the remarks were inappropriate, but concluded that the jointly‑approved curative instruction sufficiently mitigated any prejudice. Overall, the court found no miscarriage of justice, and the verdict was supported by credible evidence.