## Facts

- A traffic officer stopped vehicles on Amboy Avenue in Woodbridge Township, New Jersey, to allow schoolchildren to cross.
- William Fisch’s car, third in line, was fully stopped when a truck owned by George Manger and Lee Branin (t/a Manger & Branin) and driven by Bernard Clausi struck Fisch from the rear.
- At the scene, Clausi reportedly said his foot “slipped off the brake,” though he denied making that statement at trial; he admitted the collision and that Fisch’s stoplights worked.
- Clausi claimed Fisch had stopped, moved forward, and then stopped suddenly after traveling about 12 feet.
- The impact propelled Fisch’s car into the vehicle ahead, causing a chain collision.
- Fisch testified he was violently jolted and hit his head; he initially tried to drive home but developed pain and was driven home by a state trooper.
- Medical testimony described a “whip lash” neck and back injury and later linked the accident to a ruptured disc requiring a hemilaminectomy.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial judge may deny a plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on damages conditioned on the defendant’s consent to an increased verdict (additur).
2. Whether the additur increasing the verdict from $3,000 to $7,500 remained so inadequate on the evidence that a new trial on damages was required.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the judgment as to damages and ordered a new trial limited to damages.
- The Court left the liability determination intact, finding it clearly established and separable from damages.
- The Court concluded that the increased award was still inadequate in light of the evidence of injury and consequences, and that justice required a second jury to determine damages.

## Legal Principles

- A new trial may be limited to damages when liability and damages are distinct and severable and liability is clearly established.
- Judicial devices that adjust jury awards (including additur and remittitur) are permissible only insofar as they achieve substantial justice without displacing the jury’s function.
- If an adjusted award remains materially unjust in view of the proofs, the proper remedy is a new trial on damages rather than allowing the adjusted verdict to stand.

## Conclusion

Because the additur-adjusted damages award did not fairly compensate the plaintiff on the medical evidence, the court ordered a new trial confined to damages while preserving the original jury’s liability finding.


Fisch v. Manger, 24 N.J. 66, 130 A.2d 815 (N.J. 1957)