Lombardi & Lombardi, P.A. is marking a significant milestone in the history of our firm as we celebrate our 50^th anniversary. Since 1975, we have proudly assisted numerous clients across New Jersey in navigating complex personal injury, Workers’ Compensation, and employment legal matters.

Our half-century of success is a testament to the dedication of the entire Lombardi & Lombardi, P.A. team and our ongoing commitment to providing exceptional legal services throughout the region. We have established a reputation for providing unparalleled personal service, legal guidance, and sound counsel.

Whether advocating for injured clients or standing up for employees facing workplace discrimination, we always prioritize protecting clients’ rights and consistently securing the most favorable outcomes. In our five-decade history, we have recovered more than $800 million in compensation for clients.

Clients are the foundation of our success. We value the relationships we have built with our clients and extend our heartfelt gratitude to all who have trusted our firm throughout our 50 years. We look forward to developing new relationships and continuing to serve our community with the same dedication and exceptional legal services our clientele expects and deserves. Thank you for making Lombardi & Lombardi, P.A. your trusted legal partner.

To learn more about our extensive array of legal services, call Lombardi & Lombardi, P.A. today at 732-906-1500 or contact us online to schedule a free consultation. Located in Brick, Freehold, Point Pleasant, and Edison, New Jersey, we serve clients throughout New Jersey.

Plea bargains are an important element of the criminal justice system in New Jersey and across the U.S. The American Bar Association reports that approximately 98% of criminal convictions in the U.S. come from guilty pleas rather than from trials. Plea bargains help our justice system function efficiently by reducing the need for criminal trials and the administrative resources they require.

However, criminal defendants who know they may or will also face civil claims for their conduct are much less likely to accept a plea bargain. Plea bargains qualify as statements of a party opponent, which are admissible as evidence in a New Jersey civil trial under N.J.R.E. 803(b)(1). Thus, a defendant’s criminal plea could come back to haunt them in a later civil trial regarding the same conduct that led to criminal charges.

Civil reservations address this concern, serving as a useful tool that can facilitate plea bargains while alleviating the concerns a defendant may have about entering a plea.

Criminal defendants can negotiate a civil reservation into their plea bargain, which prevents their plea from being used against them in a civil proceeding. This is important because, as the New Jersey Supreme Court explained in Maida v. Kuskin, 110 A.3d 867 (2015), “absent a properly entered civil reservation, a person who enters a guilty plea . . . may be confronted with the factual basis for it in a civil action arising from the same occurrence . . . .” Of course, if a defendant is found guilty but doesn’t admit any wrongdoing, there’s no statement that can be used against them in civil cases under N.J.R.E. 803(b)(1) because they never actually admitted their guilt.

The relevant court rules for civil reservations

Civil reservations are outlined in New Jersey’s Municipal Court Rule 7:6-2(a)(1). That Rule states, in part, that “[o]n the request of the defendant, the court may, at the time of the acceptance of a guilty plea, order that the plea shall not be evidential in any civil proceeding.”

Similarly, Superior Court Rule 3:9-2 states that “[f]or good cause shown the court may, in accepting a plea of guilty, order that such plea not be evidential in any civil proceeding.”

There is a major difference between these two rules. The Municipal Court’s rule presumes good cause, placing the burden of proving otherwise upon an objector. In contrast, the Superior Court’s rule places the burden of proving good cause upon the defendant and requires they show good cause for the civil reservation to issue.

This is likely because of the cases each court hears. The Superior Court is one of general jurisdiction, but the Municipal Court hears criminal cases involving petty offenses like traffic violations, DUIs, and disorderly conduct. The drafters’ intent when writing the civil reservation rules was likely to facilitate the plea bargaining process for defendants facing petty offenses that frequently involve additional civil claims.

New Jersey has a powerful incentive to facilitate rapid resolution and plea bargaining for these relatively minor offenses. For the more serious criminal matters that are before the Superior Court, the state is likely balancing other interests that favor more thorough adjudication and a higher standard defendants must meet to secure a civil reservation.

The “ins and outs” of civil reservations

A civil reservation must be made in open court and made contemporaneously with a court accepting the defendant’s guilty plea. Defendants should remember that any testimony they give before securing a civil reservation will not be protected by it.

As I mentioned above, a court may evaluate “good cause” when determining whether to grant a civil reservation. The Appellate Division has made clear what good cause looks like.

First, good cause exists when, as the Appellate Division held in State v. Haulaway, Inc., 608 A.2d 964 (1992), the reservation “is necessary to remove an obstacle to a defendant’s pleading guilty to a criminal charge.” In other words, the defendant would plead guilty but for the ramifications of the guilty plea in subsequent civil cases.

More recently, the Appellate Division held in State v. Tsilimidos, 837 A.2d 373 (2003), that good cause can also be shown “where the civil consequences of a plea may wreak devastating financial havoc on a defendant.” For example, in State v. McIntyre-Caulfield, 187 A.3d 171 (N.J. App. Div. 2018), the court held that a civil lawsuit after the defendant’s guilty plea could wreak financial havoc where their insurance company disclaimed coverage in the related civil matter.

Notably, crime victims have a limited role to play in civil reservations. Under N.J. Rev. Stat. § 52:4B-36(o), victims can consult with a prosecutor before plea negotiations are complete. They also have the right to have a prosecutor advise a court on the victim’s position regarding the plea agreement. However, these rights of a victim do not alter or limit the authority or discretion of the prosecutor to enter into any plea agreement they deem appropriate.

In some circumstances, victims may appeal a trial court’s granting of a civil reservation. In State v. Lavrik, 275 A.3d 929 (2022), the Appellate Division held that where a civil reservation was not a condition of a plea agreement, a victim had standing to appeal the reservation.

In that case, the victim asserted in a single point heading in a court filing that the trial court erroneously granted a civil reservation. The prosecutor in the case argued the defendant failed to establish good cause, particularly proof of the potential for financial devastation. The court noted that section 52:4B-36(o) would have prevented the victim from being able to contest the trial court’s entry of the order allowing the civil reservation if it were a condition of the plea agreement because it would have interfered with the prosecutor’s discretion concerning plea agreements.

A useful tool for criminal defendants that criminal and civil attorneys should be mindful of

Civil reservations are crucial for the efficient functioning of New Jersey courts. Particularly with petty offenses that frequently come with related civil actions, civil reservations allow courts to efficiently manage their criminal dockets when a guilty plea is in the parties’ best interests but for a criminal defendant’s potential attendant civil liability.

Criminal and civil attorneys should familiarize themselves with the statutes, case law, and common practices regarding civil reservations. It could very well be malpractice for a criminal defense attorney not to seek a civil reservation for their client. In most cases, courts will grant civil reservations as part of a plea bargain, though it only benefits the defendant to have a civil reservation on the record. Particularly in Municipal Court where the burden of proof falls upon objectors, there is no reason for a criminal defense attorney to not seek a civil reservation if there is any risk of attendant liability in a civil action.

When the action shifts from a criminal case to a related civil case, regardless of which side of the latter an attorney is on, if there’s a question about a civil reservation, the attorney should request the certified disposition from the Municipal Court or Superior Court. This will help them determine whether the civil reservation was granted so they know how to proceed in the civil case.

Joseph A. Lombardi is an attorney at Lombardi & Lombardi, P.A., a leading New Jersey personal injury, workers’ compensation, and employment law firm effectively representing the legal needs of its clients since 1975. He can be reached at JosephL@lombardiandlombardi.com.

 

Benefits All New Jerseyans

This past August, Acting Governor Nicholas Scutari (who was serving in that position while Governor Phil Murphy was at the Democratic National Convention) signed into law S2822/A3986, which increases the contingency fee cap for attorneys in workers’ compensation cases from 20 percent to 25 percent. Scutari, the New Jersey Senate President who himself is a personal injury and workers’ compensation attorney, said the increase would “ensure fair compensation for attorneys and provide workers with the accessible, quality legal representation they deserve.”

S2822/A3986, which amended N.J.R.S. 34:15-64 and increased the fee cap for the first time since it was established in 1927, was not without controversy. The New Jersey Business and Industry Association opposed the increase, claiming the state’s workers’ compensation claimants’ attorneys have seen their fees increase proportionally over the past decade because the State Average Weekly Wage rose over 28 percent during that period. The New Jersey State League of Municipalities also opposed the increase, citing the “worrisome trend of ever-increasing insurance costs.”

(I will put aside for the moment statistics like those from the National Academy of Social Insurance’s most recent annual report showing that (i) across the U.S., employers saw a 5.6% decrease in total workers’ compensation costs from 2017 to 2021, (ii) workers’ compensation benefits paid to New Jersey employees dropped 2.6 percent over that time, and (iii) the amount of total benefits employers paid to New Jersey employees per $100 of covered wages decreased from $0.97 in 2017 to $0.80 in 2021.)

Contrary to what opponents of the fee increase would lead you to believe, all New Jerseyans and the employers and insurers that do business in the Garden State stand to benefit from the increased cap.

Injured workers will benefit from the fee cap increase

With a higher fee cap, you can expect more attorneys to take on injured workers’ cases and established workers’ compensation attorneys to continue representing injured workers.

With the former group, they may view workers’ compensation as a more attractive practice area than in the past and may expand or shift their practices to represent injured workers. With the latter group, a higher fee cap should mean higher profit margins, which could keep seasoned workers’ compensation attorneys from deciding to explore other practice areas that might have been more profitable than a workers’ compensation practice with a 20 percent fee cap. Those increased margins could also motivate them to expand their firms to take on more injured workers. For both groups, these increased margins could motivate them to invest more in their clients’ cases than they might have with a 20 percent fee cap.

If more New Jersey attorneys practice workers’ compensation law, and established workers’ compensation attorneys in the state continue to represent injured workers and perhaps expand their practices, injured workers and their families will benefit.

First, with more attorneys in the market, more injured workers will have legal representation, which will help them get the medical care and lost wage benefits they need. Presumably, fewer injured workers will mount a losing “do it yourself” effort to secure that care and those benefits.

Second, with more injured workers getting the medical care they need, they will hopefully return to work faster and with the ability to resume performing the same tasks they did before they were injured. This will hopefully minimize how long their inability to bring home a paycheck negatively affects them and their families.

Third, in that same vein, if injured workers are more likely to secure lost wage benefits because more of them have legal representation, they and their families may avoid relying on unemployment, welfare, food banks, and other social safety nets while they’re injured.

Finally, with more attorneys representing injured workers, physicians who had not been treating injured workers for fear of not getting paid for their services will likely decide to do so. They may be confident that injured workers represented by counsel are more likely to secure payment for medical care they have received, which minimizes the risk those physicians face of their bills going unpaid. As a result, injured workers might have more—and more convenient—options for treatment.

Employers will likely benefit from the fee cap increase

They might not admit it, but employers are likely to benefit from the increased fee cap too.

As I noted above, with more injured workers represented by counsel, they will hopefully return to work faster after securing the medical care they need. This could lead to less worker turnover, as an employer need not find a long-term or permanent replacement for an injured worker who is likely to return to work soon, and can likely fill any gaps through their current workforce.

With less worker turnover, employers can avoid the likely dip in worker productivity that often accompanies a new worker getting acclimated to the job. They can also likely avoid the costs of finding new workers, training them, and hiring ones whose negativity or ineptitude destroys their colleagues’ productivity and/or the work environment.

Insurers will likely benefit from the fee cap increase

Equally unwilling to admit it, insurers are also likely to benefit from the increased fee cap.

With more injured workers represented by counsel, their workers’ compensation claims will presumably be resolved quicker and more efficiently. While insurers may be unhappy with how the claims are resolved, that they are being resolved means less uncertainty regarding insurers’ liabilities for those claims.

Additionally, with more workers’ compensation attorneys filing more claims on behalf of injured workers, insurers (and their insureds) will hopefully identify and eliminate hazardous conditions more quickly and easily. If they investigate those conditions and eliminate them, they’ll save themselves time (i.e., dealing with workers’ compensation matters) and money (i.e., legal fees and workers’ compensation benefits) down the road.

New Jersey taxpayers will benefit from the fee cap increase

Even everyday New Jerseyans benefit from the fee cap increase.

With more injured workers presumably back on their feet and working because of the increase, fewer New Jerseyans’ federal or state tax dollars will go toward funding social safety net payments that injured workers might have needed to make ends meet and feed their families with while they were not working.

In addition, with employers presumably facing decreased labor costs because of injured workers healing and getting back to work quickly, employers will have one less cost to pass onto New Jerseyans in the form of higher prices for those employers’ products and services.

A rising fee cap lifts all boats

The concerns voiced by opponents of the new workers’ compensation attorneys’ fee cap in New Jersey are understandable given their view of the world. But if the increased cap leads to what many in the New Jersey workers’ compensation claimants’ bar believe will happen—more injured workers will be represented by counsel while pursuing their workers’ compensation claims—workers’ compensation claimants’ attorneys won’t be the only ones to benefit from the new cap.

Workers, employers, insurers, and even New Jersey’s taxpayers all stand to benefit too.

Michael Ralph Lombardi is an attorney at Lombardi & Lombardi, P.A., a leading New Jersey personal injury, workers’ compensation, and employment law firm effectively representing the legal needs of its clients since 1975. He can be reached at michaelr@LombardiandLombardi.com.

Reprinted with permission from the October 9, 2024, edition of the New Jersey Law Journal © 2024 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-257-3382 or reprints@alm.com.

Soon after launching in 2009 and 2012 respectively, Uber and Lyft became preferred modes of transportation for individuals who lived or worked in areas not served by public transportation or taxis, as well as those who were well-served by either or both but still preferred to use a ridesharing service. Today, designated ridesharing zones at airports, stadiums, condominium and apartment complexes, and other locations show just how ingrained Uber, Lyft, and other lesser-known ridesharing companies have become in our everyday lives.

In 2023, Uber and Lyft provided 9.4 billion and 709 million rides, respectively, across the world. With that many automobile rides, accidents are inevitable. When attorneys are litigating an automobile accident involving a ridesharing vehicle that took place in New Jersey, they should be aware of special insurance provisions regarding those vehicles that are mandated by New Jersey statute.

N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 addresses insurance coverage for ridesharing companies and their drivers

N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 requires that (i) a rideshare driver using their personal vehicle to provide rides for a ridesharing service, (ii) a ridesharing service (referred to in the statute as a “transportation network company”), or (iii) any combination of the two, maintain minimum insurance coverage limits.

The statute provides two sets of minimum limits. One is for when a driver is logged into a ridesharing platform, signifying their availability to accept rides. The other is for when the driver is en route to picking up a passenger or has picked them up and is transporting them.

When a ridesharing driver is merely logged into a ridesharing platform, but is not en route to a passenger or transporting a passenger, the statutorily required minimum insurance limits are:

(1)       primary automobile liability insurance in the amount of at least $50,000 for death or bodily injury per person, $100,000 for death or bodily injury per incident, and $25,000 for property damage;

(2)       primary personal injury protection benefits (PIP) that provide coverage amounts selected pursuant to section 4 of P.L.1972, c.70 (C.39:6A-4); and

(3)       uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage to the extent required pursuant to section 2 of P.L.1968, c.385 (C.17:28-1.1).

When a ridesharing driver is en route to a preassigned passenger or is transporting a passenger, the statutorily required minimum insurance limits are:

(1)       primary automobile liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,500,000 for death, bodily injury, and property damage;

(2)       primary automobile insurance for medical payments benefits in an amount of at least $10,000 per person per incident, which shall only apply to and provide coverage for the benefit of the rideshare driver; and

(3)       uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in an amount of at least $1,500,000.

If there is a lapse in a rideshare driver’s insurance coverage, or their coverage does not meet the statutory minimum, the statute requires their ridesharing service’s insurance to provide the required coverage “beginning with the first dollar of a claim.” The ridesharing company will also have the duty to defend the claim.

In addition, N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10(e) clarifies that coverage under an insurance policy maintained by a ridesharing company shall not depend upon a private passenger automobile insurer first denying a claim. The provision also does not require such an insurer to deny a claim first.

N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10(j) addresses the Verbal Threshold/Limitation on Lawsuit option, codified at N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8, which provides New Jersey consumers the option to select a lower automobile insurance premium in exchange for limiting their rights to seek damages arising out of an automobile accident that injured them. N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10(j) prohibits a ridesharing company or its drivers from asserting that limited right against an individual injured in an accident while in a ridesharing vehicle, including those not receiving personal injury protection benefits.

The enhanced insurance requirements under N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 provide protection not only to passengers in ridesharing vehicles but also to injured parties in other vehicles involved in an accident with a ridesharing vehicle.

If a ridesharing driver was not responsible for causing an accident, their passenger will be subject to the liability insurance limit of the responsible driver and automobile. That said, the passenger will also be protected by the minimum ridesharing company UM/UIM limit of $1,500,000.

N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 in action

N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 provides ridesharing passengers as well as the public greater protection in the event of an automobile accident involving preassigned rides through ridesharing services.

When litigating an automobile accident involving a ridesharing service driver, it is common practice for plaintiffs’ counsel to join as defendants both the driver and the ridesharing service itself. This is usually followed by a request by defense counsel to dismiss the ridesharing service because the insurance coverage is adequate. But plaintiffs’ counsel should not be so quick to agree to that request.

For one, the coverage may not be adequate if the injuries are catastrophic. Second, there may be multiple claimants, which could render the coverage inadequate. Third, if the rideshare driver is merely logged into the system, the coverage per person is only $50,000.

Additionally, plaintiffs’ counsel should also weigh the need to allege respondeat superior liability on the part of a ridesharing company if the coverage required by N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 is inadequate. Though this area of the law is evolving, in September 2022, Uber and a subsidiary paid the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development’s Unemployment Trust Fund $100 million after an audit revealed the companies improperly classified hundreds of thousands of drivers as independent contractors. Thus, in the appropriate case, it may be advisable to assert a cause of action against a ridesharing company under a theory of respondeat superior.

Though it was enacted in 2017, I’ve been surprised by how many attorneys—on both sides of the aisle—are unaware of N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 and its provisions. Given that the number of rides we as a society take through ridesharing services is unlikely to materially decrease soon, all attorneys who litigate automobile accidents should familiarize themselves with N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 so they can better protect their clients.

Michael F. Lombardi is the managing attorney of Lombardi & Lombardi, P.A., a leading New Jersey personal injury, criminal defense, and employment law firm effectively representing the legal needs of its clients since 1975. He can be reached at michaell@lombardiandlombardi.com.

New Jersey’s roads are buzzing–literally. Electric bikes and scooters are zipping through neighborhoods, carving a path toward a greener, more convenient future. A favorite among food delivery drivers and short-distance commuters and errand-runners, “e-bikes” and “e-scooters” are changing how New Jersey pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers share the road. These “micromobility” vehicles, however, are not without their risks. According to a recent University of California San Francisco study, e-bike injuries across the U.S. increased from 751 in 2017 to 23,493 in 2022, and e-scooter injuries rose from 8,566 to 56,847 over that timeframe.

The rapid rise of these vehicles has, to date, outpaced the development of a full regulatory regime in New Jersey. But that appears to be changing. Thanks to recently proposed legislation covering e-bikes and e-scooters, along with a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision regarding personal injury protection (“PIP”) coverage for e-scooter riders, a fuller regulatory framework is on the horizon.

Current regulation of e-bikes and e-scooters

Today, N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16 provides the lion’s share of regulations concerning “low-speed” e-bikes and e-scooters. Per N.J.S.A. 39:1-1, “low-speed” e-bikes are bicycles with electric motors that do not provide assistance when the bikes reach a speed of 20 miles per hour. “Low-speed” e-scooters are ones with electric motors “capable of propelling the device with or without human propulsion at a maximum speed of less than 19 miles per hour.”

N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16(a) permits riders to operate e-bikes and e-scooters on the state’s “streets, highways, roadways, and bicycle paths,” and allows riders to park them on a sidewalk, provided that the vehicle “does not impede the normal movement of pedestrian or other traffic upon the sidewalk.” The statute permits riders to operate e-bikes and e-scooters on bicycle paths, subject to local government entities’ or a state agency’s prohibition on doing so on paths under their jurisdiction. By default, riders cannot operate an e-bike or e-scooter on a trail designated for non-motorized traffic “if such trail has a natural surface tread made by clearing and grading the soil and no surfacing materials have been added.”

N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16(h) additionally requires e-bikes and e-scooters to be considered “motor vehicles” under 23 U.S.C. § 154, which concerns open alcoholic containers in motor vehicles. However, under N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16(g), all New Jersey statutes, rules, and regulations applicable to bicycles “shall apply to low-speed electric bicycles and low-speed electric scooters, except those provisions which by their very nature may have no application to low-speed electric bicycles or low-speed electric scooters.”

N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16(g) is noteworthy for two reasons. First, because it calls for e-bikes and e-scooters to be treated like bicycles, and absent any additional regulations, only riders or passengers under the age of 17 are legally required to wear a safety helmet, per N.J.S.A. 39:4-10.1. This is despite the many e-bikes and e-scooters on the market that can travel faster than 30 miles per hour. Second, N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.1 states that “every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle.” Thus, e-bike and e-scooter drivers have rights and duties above those of pedestrians.

Potential regulation of e-bikes and e-scooters

An interesting omission from N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16 is that e-bike and e-scooter owners and riders need not own a license to operate them, register them, or insure them. That may change soon.

New Jersey state senators Vin Gopal and Nicholas P. Scutari co-sponsored and introduced Senate Bill No. 2292 in January 2024. This bill would require owners of e-bikes and e-scooters to register them annually with the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission for a fee of $8 each year, and to carry PIP insurance coverage for pedestrians, liability insurance coverage, and uninsured motorist coverage.

The bill has sparked considerable debate and has been met with strong opposition. Proponents argue that the measure increases safety and accountability on the roads, while opponents stress concerns that the bill raises barriers to e-bike/e-scooter accessibility and equitable access to transportation, particularly for low-income individuals.

Opponents point out that the insurance requirement is particularly problematic for those who opt for these vehicles as a cost-effective alternative to car ownership. For these riders, the added financial burden of insurance could negate the economic benefits of choosing an e-bike or e-scooter in the first place, especially when they’re using theirs to earn an income, such as by delivering food for companies like DoorDash, Grubhub, and Uber.

Besides the financial implications, the insurance requirement also raises practical concerns. Currently, there is no insurance product specifically designed for e-bikes and e-scooters in New Jersey. Insurance providers have voiced concerns over the mismatch between existing insurance products and the new law, opining that new products would take years to develop. Given the lack of current offerings, some observers speculate insurers will price e-bike and e-scooter insurance similarly to motorcycle insurance, which is notoriously expensive. This could further deter individuals from using these vehicles, especially those who are already struggling financially.

One solution discussed by safe street advocates is amending New Jersey’s No-Fault Act to cover low-speed e-bikes and e-scooters the same way pedestrians are covered by personal injury insurance provisions. Interestingly, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued a decision regarding that issue.

The New Jersey Supreme Court enters the e-bike/e-scooter discussion

This past May, mere months after Senators Gopal and Scutari introduced their e-bikes/e-scooters bill, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously that e-scooter riders cannot receive PIP benefits under their automobile policies when they’re injured in an accident while riding their e-scooter because they do not fall within the definition of a “pedestrian” under New Jersey’s No-Fault Act.

In Goyco v. Progressive Insurance Company, David Goyco was riding an e-scooter in November 2021 in Elizabeth, New Jersey, when he was struck by a car. At the time, he was insured by Progressive Insurance Co. with a policy that had no-fault coverage. He filed a claim for PIP benefits based on his injuries and corresponding medical expenses. Progressive denied his claim because the e-scooter did not qualify as an automobile under the New Jersey Auto Insurance Law, and he did not meet the definition of a pedestrian.

Goyco filed suit seeking approval of his claim. One of his arguments was that because (as I mentioned above) N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16(g) provides that e-bikes and e-scooters should be considered the equivalents of a bicycle, and N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(h) recognizes bicyclists as pedestrians under the state’s No-Fault Act, e-scooter riders should receive PIP benefits under their automobile policies.

The trial court ruled against Goyco, holding that he was not operating a motor vehicle when he was injured nor was he a pedestrian as that term is defined by N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(h): “any person who is not occupying a vehicle propelled by other than muscular power and designed primarily for use on highways, rails and tracks.” The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

The New Jersey Supreme Court, after engaging in traditional statutory interpretation, found that Goyco’s e-scooter was “propelled by other than muscular power” and was “designed primarily for use on highways,” as “highway” is normally broadly defined. Thus, he was not a pedestrian.

Goyco’s policy arguments were equally unpersuasive to the court. It noted that the No-Fault Act had two primary goals: “provid[ing] prompt payment of medical expenses arising from an automobile accident, regardless of fault,” and “contain[ing] the rising cost of automobile insurance premiums.” The court opined that “[e]xpanding the definition of ‘pedestrian’ to include [e-scooter] operators would advance the medical coverage goal but undermine the goal of curbing the rise of insurance costs.” It further noted that the New Jersey Legislature “may certainly choose to expand the availability of PIP coverage to [e-scooter] operators, as they did with motorcycles, but that policy decision and its insurance cost implications, if any, is properly for the legislature, not the court.”

The path ahead for regulation of e-bikes and e-scooters

From Sussex County to Cape May County and everywhere in between, New Jerseyans need only take a brief walk or short drive around their neighborhoods to see just how prevalent e-bikes and e-scooters are. With so many of these vehicles on the road, and so many more likely to join them, it would be shocking if New Jersey did not increase its regulation of them.

Given Senator Gopal and Scutari’s proposed legislation, it is a safe bet that we will see a new registration program for e-bikes and e-scooters. An insurance requirement, however, might be a different story.

Based on the response to that legislation and the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Goyco, we are likely to see a compromise regarding insuring e-bikes and e-scooters, including perhaps amending the No-Fault Act. The compromise will need to balance (i) protecting e-bike and e-scooter drivers and other people on the road from harm caused by e-bikes, e-scooters, and other vehicles with (ii) the reality that a primary reason so many New Jerseyans have turned to e-bikes and e-scooters is because they offer relatively lower costs of ownership compared to automobiles. Until an affordable insurance option for e-bike and e-scooter owners is available, we are unlikely to see an insurance requirement mandated by New Jersey law.

Nicole Marie Lombardi is an attorney at Lombardi & Lombardi, P.A., a leading New Jersey personal injury, criminal defense, and employment law firm effectively representing the legal needs of its clients since 1975. She can be reached at nicolel@lombardiandlombardi.com.

The New Jersey State Police, multiple fire departments, and emergency medical services units responded Monday to a two-car accident near milepost 69.5 on the New Jersey Turnpike northbound outer roadway.

Both vehicles were on their roofs after flipping during the collision, with no entrapped occupants reported. Officers stated that one of the vehicles was on fire upon arrival. Seven occupants suffered moderate to serious injuries and were transported to a local hospital. No update on their condition has been reported.

Northbound traffic on the New Jersey Turnpike was backed up for approximately two miles north of Exit 8 until the accident was cleared. The Cranbury Police Department is handling the ongoing investigation into the crash and has asked for any witnesses to come forward with information.

Car accidents can occur at any moment and result in serious injuries, costly medical expenses, lost work, and many other losses. Gathering evidence during the accident can be vital to your injury claim. After an accident, if you can, you should report the accident to the police, exchange contact and insurance information with the other driver, photograph everything at the scene, gather statements from witnesses, and retain all records related to the crash and your injuries.

Most importantly, seek medical attention as soon as possible. Not only is a doctor’s report essential for your claim, but you may have suffered a severe internal injury with delayed symptoms that can become life-threatening quickly.

If you have been injured in a car accident caused by someone else, call Lombardi & Lombardi, P.A. at 732-906-1500 or contact us online to schedule a free consultation. Located in Brick, Freehold, Point Pleasant, and Edison, New Jersey, we serve clients throughout the state.