issue unaffected error in New Jersey

2013The “general rule [is] that issues in negligence cases should be retried together unless the issue unaffected by error is entirely distinct and separable from the other issues.” Ahn v. Kim, 145 N.J. 423, 434 , 678 A.2d 1073 (1996); accord, Ogborne v. Mercer Cemetery Corp., 197 N.J. 448, 461 , 963 A.2d 828 (2009) (holding that issues of proximate causation and comparative negligence were “intertwined” with issue of duty, thereby requiring retrial on all three issues); Conklin v. Hannoch Weisman, 145 N.J. 395, 410 , 678 A.2d 1060 (1996) (ordering retrial of both proximate causation and negligenc

2013The “general rule [is] that issues in negligence cases should be retried together unless the issue unaffected by error is entirely distinct and separable from the other issues.” Ahn v. Kim, 145 N.J. 423, 434 , 678 A.2d 1073 (1996); accord, Ogborne v. Mercer Cemetery Corp., 197 N.J. 448, 461 , 963 A.2d 828 (2009) (holding that issues of proximate causation and comparative negligence were “intertwined” with issue of duty, thereby requiring retrial on all three issues); Conklin v. Hannoch Weisman, 145 N.J. 395, 410 , 678 A.2d 1060 (1996) (ordering retrial of both proximate causation and negligenc

2013The “general rule [is] that issues in negligence cases should be retried together unless the issue unaffected by error is entirely distinct and separable from the other issues.” Ahn v. Kim, 145 N.J. 423, 434 , 678 A.2d 1073 (1996); accord, Ogborne v. Mercer Cemetery Corp., 197 N.J. 448, 461 , 963 A.2d 828 (2009) (holding that issues of proximate causation and comparative negligence were “intertwined” with issue of duty, thereby requiring retrial on all three issues); Conklin v. Hannoch Weisman, 145 N.J. 395, 410 , 678 A.2d 1060 (1996) (ordering retrial of both proximate causation and negligenc

2013The “general rule [is] that issues in negligence cases should be retried together unless the issue unaffected by error is entirely distinct and separable from the other issues.” Ahn v. Kim, 145 N.J. 423, 434 , 678 A.2d 1073 (1996); accord, Ogborne v. Mercer Cemetery Corp., 197 N.J. 448, 461 , 963 A.2d 828 (2009) (holding that issues of proximate causation and comparative negligence were “intertwined” with issue of duty, thereby requiring retrial on all three issues); Conklin v. Hannoch Weisman, 145 N.J. 395, 410 , 678 A.2d 1060 (1996) (ordering retrial of both proximate causation and negligenc

2013The “general rule [is] that issues in negligence cases should be retried together unless the issue unaffected by error is entirely distinct and separable from the other issues.” Ahn v. Kim, 145 N.J. 423, 434 , 678 A.2d 1073 (1996); accord, Ogborne v. Mercer Cemetery Corp., 197 N.J. 448, 461 , 963 A.2d 828 (2009) (holding that issues of proximate causation and comparative negligence were “intertwined” with issue of duty, thereby requiring retrial on all three issues); Conklin v. Hannoch Weisman, 145 N.J. 395, 410 , 678 A.2d 1060 (1996) (ordering retrial of both proximate causation and negligenc

2013The “general rule [is] that issues in negligence cases should be retried together unless the issue unaffected by error is entirely distinct and separable from the other issues.” Ahn v. Kim, 145 N.J. 423, 434 , 678 A.2d 1073 (1996); accord, Ogborne v. Mercer Cemetery Corp., 197 N.J. 448, 461 , 963 A.2d 828 (2009) (holding that issues of proximate causation and comparative negligence were “intertwined” with issue of duty, thereby requiring retrial on all three issues); Conklin v. Hannoch Weisman, 145 N.J. 395, 410 , 678 A.2d 1060 (1996) (ordering retrial of both proximate causation and negligenc

2009In Tindal v. Smith, 299 N.J.Super. 123, 138 , 690 A. 2d 674 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 150 N.J. 28 , 695 A. 2d 670 (1997), we held that "erroneous instructions on proximate cause [did] not require a new trial [on liability] because the verdict and judgment were premised on a finding of no negligence and, based on the evidence, the two issues were entirely distinct and separate." There, the "judge charged on negligence separately from proximate cause and repeatedly explained that the jurors would not consider the latter unless they found `that either or both of the defendants in this case have

2009In Tindal v. Smith, 299 N.J.Super. 123, 138 , 690 A. 2d 674 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 150 N.J. 28 , 695 A. 2d 670 (1997), we held that "erroneous instructions on proximate cause [did] not require a new trial [on liability] because the verdict and judgment were premised on a finding of no negligence and, based on the evidence, the two issues were entirely distinct and separate." There, the "judge charged on negligence separately from proximate cause and repeatedly explained that the jurors would not consider the latter unless they found `that either or both of the defendants in this case have

1996In Ahn v. Kim, 145 N.J. 377, 434 , 678 A.2d 1051 (decided July 18,1996), (slip op. at 14), also decided today, we note “the general rule that issues in negligence cases are to be retried together unless it clearly and convincingly appears that the issue unaffected by error is ‘entirely distinct and separable’ from the other issues.” Although the jury’s finding of negligence in the within case very *411 well may have been unaffected by error, we have no way of knowing precisely what conduct the jury based that finding on.

1996In Ahn v. Kim, 145 N.J. 377, 434 , 678 A.2d 1051 (decided July 18,1996), (slip op. at 14), also decided today, we note “the general rule that issues in negligence cases are to be retried together unless it clearly and convincingly appears that the issue unaffected by error is ‘entirely distinct and separable’ from the other issues.” Although the jury’s finding of negligence in the within case very *411 well may have been unaffected by error, we have no way of knowing precisely what conduct the jury based that finding on.