Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

New Jersey Product Liability Statute Of Limitations

October 17, 2014 Leave a comment

Product liability is an area of personal injury law in which manufacturers and sellers are held responsible for harm caused by their products. Manufacturers and sellers are covered by a statute of limitations set forth in the New Jersey Products Liability Act. The Act limits the time that an injured party may bring suit to two (2) years from the accrual of the cause of action.

The purpose of statutes of limitations is to stimulate litigants to pursue a right of action within a reasonable time so that the opposing party may have a fair opportunity to defend, and to penalize those who intentionally cause delay. While encouraging the diligent and timely prosecution of claims, the statute of limitations is however, subject to the “discovery rule.” Based upon the equitable principles of the discovery rule, accrual of a cause of action does not occur until an injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered, that he or she may have a basis for an actionable claim. Litigation concerning the discovery rule is generally based upon a dispute as to when a Plaintiff discovered, or should have discovered, an injury. It is well established in New Jersey that the bases of a claim for personal injury are the Plaintiff’s awareness that he or she sustained an injury, and the understanding that the injury may involve another party’s fault. When the Plaintiff is aware of a set of facts indicating that a third party’s unreasonable conduct might have contributed to the injury, medical or legal certainty is not required.

When a party is seeking only economic damages for damage to a product itself, however, and not for harm to persons or property, the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that the claim is best brought under contract law theory, and therefore governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). This means that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of purchase, instead of the date the defect was discovered, or should have been discovered, and is (4) years, instead of two (2) years. This four (4) year statute of limitations may not apply however, where the product itself is considered dangerous, where there is a disparity in the bargaining power of the parties, or when there is fraud or unconscionably.

A Plaintiffs time to bring a cause of action for personal injuries under product liability laws in New Jersey is limited and may be as short as two (2) years. This limitation on the right to sue is necessary in order to product manufacturers and sellers of products from stale lawsuits, which may be impossible to defend due to the lapse of time.


Alloway v. General Marine Industries, 149 N.J. 620 (N.J. 1997).

Lopez v. Swyer, 300 A.2d 563 (N.J. 1973).

Cornett v. Johnson & Johnson, 998 A.2d 543 (N.J. 2011)

N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2

I have been serving Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Hasson, P.C. since an year and I must suggest you that If you have any question regarding to Personal Injury then visit NJ Personal Injury Lawyer or contact Bergen County Product Liability Attorney here: 320 Cedar Lane Teaneck, NJ 07666.
Call today! (201) 530-6272

To Read More about Personal Injury Click:
New Jersey Personal Injury Law: Contributory Negligence


Drug Laws in NJ: Negligent Service of Alcohol

September 29, 2014 Leave a comment

The New Jersey legislature recognizes the difficulty that alcoholic beverage servers face when attempting to obtain liability insurance, due to a lack of availability and the increased costs. It realizes that this not only adversely effects the servers themselves, but patrons and third parties who suffer personal injury and property damage as the result of negligent service of alcohol by alcoholic beverage servers. In order to make it more economically feasible for insurance companies to provide liability insurance to alcoholic beverage servers at a reasonable cost, the legislature enacted the New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act.

The Act can be found in N.J.S.A. 2A:22A-1 to -7, and allows recovery for damages resulting from the service of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person. Laws such as this are commonly known as Dram Shop laws, and apply to taverns, liquor stores, and commercial establishments where alcohol is sold. In New Jersey, a person who sustains personal injury or property damage as the result of the negligent service of alcoholic beverages by a licensed alcoholic beverage server may recover damages from the server if the negligent service was the proximate cause of the injury or damage and was a foreseeable consequent of the negligent service. Negligent service is defined as serving a visibly intoxicated person, or serving a minor, under circumstances where the server knew, or reasonably should have known, that the person served was a minor.

In a recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that an injured motorcycle rider who was charged with, and pled guilty to, driving while intoxicated, was not barred from bring a Dram Shop claim against the restaurant he alleged negligently served him alcohol and therefore contributed to the accident in which he was injured. The restaurant argued that New Jersey law prohibits a Plaintiff who is found guilty of driving while intoxicated to recover for economic and noneconomic losses as the result of an accident. The Court however, found that while N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(b) barred the right to sue for insurance coverage, it did not prevent an injured party convicted of driving while intoxicated from bringing a Dram Shop claim. The Court declared that there is no incompatibility between the two provisions. It further stated, “An intoxicated person is deterred from driving drunk by losing the right to sue for insurance coverage for his injuries. On the other hand, permitting an injured drunk driver to file an action against a liquor establishment and its servers for serving a visibly intoxicated patron similarly advances the goal of deterring drunk driving.” Voss v. Tranquilino, 992 A.2d 829, (2010 N.J. Super).

 Source: LexisNexis, codes and case cited in article

I have been serving Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Hasson, P.C. since an year and I must suggest you that If you have any question regarding to Criminal Defense then visit Criminal Law New Jersey or contact NJ Drug Defense Lawyer here: 320 Cedar Lane Teaneck, NJ 07666.

Call today! (201) 530-6272

To Read More about New Jersey Family Law Click:
Expungement of criminal records in New Jersey

New Jersey IV-D Court

August 15, 2014 2 comments

IV-D Courts were created pursuant to title IV-D of the Social Security Act, in order to establish and enforce child support orders. Title IV-D Courts hear child support and parentage cases, establish child and medical support orders, and enforce child support obligations. In 1984, Child Support Amendments to the federal Act mandated expedited processes, in the form of non-judge establishment and enforcement, to be eligible for federal funding. In response, the New Jersey Supreme Court authorized a pilot to test the use of hearing officers who would hear cases and recommend orders to judges, but not have the ultimate power of decision. The project became known as the Child Support Hearing Officer Program and is currently in use in New Jersey’s title IV-D Courts. Child-Support As part of the Child Support Hearing Office Program, a New Jersey Child Support Hearing Officer (“CSHO”) is authorized to hear child support cases and make recommendations to a judge. Unless a party objects to the process or the decision, and requests a hearing before the judge, the recommendation becomes an order of the court. CSHOs are appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court to hear and resolve family support cases, subject to judicial review and approval, in accordance with federal and state law. The CSHO has authority to hear issues involving establishment, modification, and enforcement of child support. The CSHO also facilitates the establishment of parenting time and custody consent orders. The CSHO hears testimony and evidence, makes findings of fact, reaches conclusions of law, and prepares a Uniform Summary Support Order with a recommended disposition for submission to a Family Part Judge for approval.

The Family Part Judge reviews the findings and recommendations of the CSHO before issuing a final Court Order. Family Part Judges also hear complex child support cases, including dissolution and non-dissolution matters, and has exclusive jurisdiction to enter orders for contested paternity, direct pay (not IV-D) child support cases, support for children over the age of 18, college tuition, claiming child as a dependent for tax purposes, and other matters related to more complex child support issues. The Judge also has exclusive jurisdiction to incarcerate, execute or vacate a bench warrant.


The CSHO may make a preliminary determination that the matter is outside the jurisdiction of the CSHO or sufficiently complex that it must be heard by a judge. Some reasons for referral of a matter to the judge include active warrants or Domestic Violence Restraints, recommendation of incarceration, and objections to appearing before a CSHO by one or both parties. A party who appears before a CSHO also has the right to object to the CSHO’s recommendation and be heard before a Family Part Judge. A hearing before the Judge can usually be scheduled for the same day.


For Further details Visit: Child Support Lawyers In NJ or contact Family Law Attorney New Jersey here 3 University Plaza, Suite 350 Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 771-1808

Uninsured & Underinsured Motorist Coverage

September 16, 2011 Leave a comment
Categories: Uncategorized