Michael Marranca v. Valery Loytsker

Why did the New Jersey Appellate Division fail to see the legal error by the trial court judge? The judge refused to give the jury instruction on "aggravation of pre-existing disability (8.11F), because she did not remember the testimony on this issue. The defendant introduced the possibility that a pre-existing disability was present in Mr. Marranca. Therefore, an instruction on aggravation of pre-existing condition was necessary for the jury to understand how a person can be liable. The Appellate Division's opinion is in conflict with the holdings in Edwards v. Walsh, 397 N.J. Super. 567 (App. Div. 2007); and is also in conflict with the holdings in Davidson v. Slater, 189 N.J. 166 (2007). Why did the New Jersey Appellate Division fail to see that the trial court's verdict was against the weight of the evidence? Why did they fail to see that the judge did not apply Jastram v. Kruse, 197 N.J. 216 (2008), in deciding a motion for a new trial for damages? The judge failed to address the nature and extent of Mr. Marranca's permanent injuries because she did not remember the testimonies from his doctors. That is why she never applied Jastram v. Kruse.