FISCHER v. CANARIO


143 N.J. 235 (1996)

670 A.2d 516

JERRY FISCHER, ADMINISTRATOR AND ADMINISTRATOR AD PROSEQUENDUM OF THE ESTATE OF RACHEL FISCHER, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND CROSS-APPELLANT, v. ARTHUR T. CANARIO, M.D., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AND CROSS-RESPONDENT, AND NORMAN MAGID, M.D. AND JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 5, DEFENDANTS.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Decided January 30, 1996.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Hugh Francis argued the cause for appellant and cross-respondent (Francis & Berry, attorneys; Peter A. Olsen, on the briefs).

Thomas R. Chesson argued the cause for respondent and cross-appellant (Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, attorneys; William A. Krais, on the briefs).


The opinion of the Court was delivered by GARIBALDI, J.

The primary issue in this appeal is the scope of the prospective application of the damage-apportionment rule announced by the Court in Scafidi v. Seiler, 119 N.J. 93, 574 A.2d 398 (1990). Also at issue is whether the trial court erred in refusing to give the jury an "ultimate outcome" charge.

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases