eNotes: Liability – October 2022 – New Jersey

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

NJ CASE SUMMARIES

City of Hoboken v. Chevron Corp.
United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals
No. 21-2728

Decided: August 26, 2022

The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals condemns the burning of fossil fuels, recognizes rising seas and global warming, but finds that the Plaintiffs’ suit against the Defendant oil companies under state tort law for contributing to global warming did not state federal subject matter claims and could not be removed to Federal Court as a consequence.

Background

The Plaintiffs had filed suit against the Defendant oil companies under state tort law for contributing to global warming. Although the Plaintiffs filed suit in State Court, the Defendants removed the cases to Federal Court, arguing that Plaintiffs’ Complaints about global warming required resolution of the matter in Federal Court under federal law. However, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motions for remand and this appeal followed.

Holding

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected each of the cited bases for federal jurisdiction asserted by Defendants, including their assertion that Plaintiffs’ tort claims were inherently federal or raised substantive federal issues, related to production of oil on the Outer Continental Shelf, and that Defendants were acting under federal officers. The Circuit Court first held that Plaintiffs’ state tort claims did not arise under federal law, noting that Plaintiffs had alleged claims of nuisance, trespass, negligence, misrepresentation and consumer fraud. The Circuit Court further held that these claims were not preempted by federal law, as the Supreme Court had only identified three statutes to which complete preemption applied. The Court also ruled that Defendants’ defenses did not raise a substantive federal question. The Third Circuit rejected Defendants’ invocation of oil product drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, ruling that such oil extraction was too attenuated from the burning of fossil fuels that caused climate change. Finally, the Court found no indication that Defendants’ business activities were conducted under the direction of a federal officer.

Questions about this case can be directed to Mark Sander at (856) 334-0415 ext. 8915 or msander@tthlaw.com.

Rivera v. The Valley Hosp., Inc.
New Jersey Supreme Court
No. A-25/26/27, Sept. Term 2021, 085992/085993/085994

Decided: August 25, 2022

Partial summary judgment should have been entered in Defendants’ favor as to Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, did not establish that Defendants’ actions or omissions were motivated by actual malice or a wanton or willful disregard.

Background

Plaintiffs, the heir and executor of the Estate of Viviana Ruscitto, filed suit following Ruscitto’s death from leiomyosarcoma (a rare cancer that cannot be diagnosed preoperatively), after Ruscitto underwent a hysterectomy performed by Defendants using a power morcellation device. Ruscitto’s hysterectomy was performed to treat uterine fibroids. Prior to the hysterectomy, Ruscitto’s treating gynecologist advised her as to the risk of morcellation of malignant cancerous tissue, although Ruscitto had been previously informed that an endometrial biopsy only found noncancerous tissue. Ruscitto testified during her deposition that her gynecologist never mentioned the use of a power morcellator for the hysterectomy, but simply explained that the surgery would involve “chop[ing] up” her uterus. A biopsy of Ruscitto’s uterine tissue revealed a Stage 4 leiomyosarcoma. Ruscitto began cancer treatment, but passed away a year later. Prior to Ruscitto’s hysterectomy, the FDA had issued a warning discouraging the use of power morcellation. However, Defendants continued to use power morcellation to facilitate laparoscopic surgery after considering the increased morbidity risk from an open surgery and finding that their own data did not match the cancer numbers published by the FDA. Although Defendants drafted an updated informed consent form, it was never provided to Ruscitto.

Holding

The Supreme Court reviewed the Punitive Damages Act (“PDA”) and found that it explicitly stated that the clear and convincing standard of establishing actual malice or wanton and willful disregard “may not be satisfied by proof of any degree of negligence, including gross negligence.” N.J.S.A. 2A:15-12(a). The Supreme Court further found that the PDA defines “wanton and willful disregard” as “a deliberate act or omission with knowledge of a high degree of probability of harm to another and reckless indifference to the consequences of such act or omission.” N.J.S.A. 2A:15- 5.10. Applying these findings, the Supreme Court reversed the denial of Defendants’ Motion for summary judgment on punitive damages, finding that the evidence did not establish that the Defendants’ actions or omissions were motivated by actual malice or a wanton or willful disregard for the Plaintiff’s health and safety.

Questions about this case can be directed to Mark Sander at (856) 334-0415 ext. 8915 or msander@tthlaw.com.