QUANIKA AUTEN et al. v. FRANCES DOUGLAS, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5605-04T15605-04T1

QUANIKA AUTEN and OMAR AUTEN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

FRANCES DOUGLAS and THEODORE DOUGLAS,

Defendants-Respondents.

____________________________________

 

Argued: March 14, 2006 - Decided March 31, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Lefelt.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Civil Part, Middlesex County, L-4216-03.

Patricia M. Love argued the cause for appellants (Hendricks & Hendricks, attorneys; Ms. Love, on the brief).

Michael C. Trifliolis argued the cause for respondents (Litvak & Trifiolis, attorneys; Mr. Trifiolis, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs appeal from a trial court order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint. The motion judge gave his reasons for the ruling in an oral opinion.

He determined, in this personal injury matter arising from a motor vehicle accident, that the injuries allegedly incurred by plaintiff Quanika Auten did not satisfy the verbal threshold standards of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a. The judge concluded that plaintiffs had made no adequate prima facie showing, sufficient to survive a summary judgment motion, either in respect of the requirement for credible objective medical evidence of a qualifying injury, or to satisfy the subjective test that requires serious impact on the injured party's life. See Oswin v. Shaw, 129 N.J. 290 (1992).

Since the date of the trial court's decision, however, the Supreme Court has, in the light of certain amendments to the statute since Oswin, modified the analytical requirements in respect of both levels of consideration. See Juarez v. J.A. Salerno & Sons, 185 N.J. 332 (2005); Serrano v. Serrano, 183 N.J. 508 (2005); DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005).

We are, therefore, constrained to vacate the order of dismissal entered by the trial court and remand for reconsideration in the light of the guidance provided by the Supreme Court in these recent cases.

 
Reversed and remanded.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-5605-04T1

March 31, 2006