Eaton v. Eaton
1990 N.J. LEXIS 78, 575 A.2d 858, 119 N.J. 628 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence case where the facts support the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, it is plain error for a trial court to instruct the jury that the mere happening of an accident is not evidence of negligence while failing to provide a res ipsa loquitur instruction. Furthermore, a violation of a statute that codifies the common-law standard of reasonable care, such as the careless driving statute, constitutes negligence itself, not merely evidence of negligence.
Facts:
- Around midnight on May 10, 1984, Donna Eaton and her mother, Sandra Eaton, were in a car on Route 24.
- As the car entered a downward curve, it left the dry roadway, struck a guardrail, became airborne for about fifty feet, and landed on its roof after hitting some trees.
- Sandra Eaton was severely injured in the crash; Donna Eaton sustained only minor injuries.
- Immediately after the accident, Donna told police that her mother, Sandra, had been driving and swerved to avoid a phantom oncoming vehicle.
- Sandra, however, told the police officer that Donna had been the driver.
- Physical evidence, including Donna's shoe wedged under the brake pedal and the nature of the vehicle damage corresponding to the occupants' injuries, led police to conclude Donna was the driver.
- A police officer issued Donna a summons for careless driving.
- On June 21, 1984, Donna pled guilty to the careless driving charge by paying a $60 fine to the municipal violations bureau without making a court appearance.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerald Eaton, as executor of Sandra Eaton's estate, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Donna Eaton in the New Jersey Law Division (trial court).
- The jury at the trial court level found that Donna Eaton was the driver but that she was not negligent.
- The Law Division entered a judgment in favor of the defendant, Donna Eaton.
- The plaintiff, Gerald Eaton, appealed the judgment to the New Jersey Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.
- The defendant, Donna Eaton, petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a negligence action arising from a single-vehicle accident, does a trial court commit plain error by instructing the jury that the mere occurrence of an accident is not evidence of negligence while simultaneously failing to instruct on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollock, J.
Yes. The trial court's instructions constituted plain error because they foreclosed the jury from drawing a permissible inference of negligence from the circumstances of the accident. The facts of this case satisfied the three conditions for the application of res ipsa loquitur: (1) a single-car accident where a vehicle leaves the road for no apparent reason is an event that ordinarily does not happen unless someone was negligent; (2) once the jury found Donna was the driver, she was in exclusive control of the vehicle; and (3) there was no indication the passenger, Sandra, contributed to the accident. The court's affirmative instruction that the accident itself was not evidence of liability, combined with its failure to instruct on res ipsa loquitur, prejudiced the plaintiff by depriving him of the benefit of the inference of negligence. Additionally, the court erred by giving contradictory instructions on the effect of violating the careless driving statute, which incorporates the common-law standard of care and thus makes its violation negligence per se, not just evidence of negligence. Finally, the court correctly held that Donna's guilty plea to the traffic violation was admissible as a party admission in the civil suit.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the importance of proper jury instructions and clarifies the application of res ipsa loquitur in single-vehicle accident cases in New Jersey. It establishes that when the circumstances of an accident strongly suggest negligence, a court cannot affirmatively instruct a jury to disregard those circumstances without also explaining the permissible inference of res ipsa loquitur. The case also provides a key distinction for future litigation, holding that violating a traffic statute that mirrors the common-law negligence standard (like 'careless driving') is negligence itself, strengthening its effect in a civil trial compared to violations of more technical traffic rules.
