LAQUETA BEST et al. v. GINO CANNELLA, individually and as agent, servant et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4689-04T54689-04T5

LAQUETA BEST and LAVERNE BEST

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

GINO CANNELLA, individually and as agent,

servant and/or employee of Norma Cannella,

NORMA CANNELLA, individually, jointly,

severally and/or in the alternative,

Defendants-Respondents.

___________________________________________

 

Submitted September 26, 2006 - Decided October 13, 2006-

Before Judges Weissbard and Lihotz.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County,

Docket No. L-2864-02.

Aronberg & Kouser, attorneys for appellants

(William J. Stopper, of counsel and on the

brief).

Respondents did not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff LaQueta Best appeals from a summary judgment dismissing her complaint for damages arising out of personal injuries sustained in a September 23, 2002 automobile accident with a car owned by defendant Gino Cannella and operated by defendant Norma Cannella. The Law Division judge dismissed the complaint because it failed to satisfy the "verbal threshold," N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a).

In rendering her decision, the judge determined that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate "a substantial impact or a significant impact on her life," therefore precluding any claim for non-economic damages. In DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005), the Court held that the substantial impact requirement imposed by Oswin v. Shaw, 129 N.J. 290, 314-15 (1992), did not survive the enactment of the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act of 1998 (AICRA). In light of DiProspero, which was decided subsequent to the decision under review, this case must be reversed. For obvious reasons, defendants have not filed an opposition to plaintiffs' appeal.

Regrettably, we cannot expect our judges to be prescient. The able and conscientious motion judge applied the law as it existed at the time. She cannot be faulted for that. Since the judge found that plaintiff had an otherwise qualifying permanent injury manifested by objective medical evidence, the case is remanded for trial.

 
Reversed and remanded for trial.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-4689-04T5

October 13, 2006