context: However, evidence that plaintiff operated the boat in water too high and at a speed too great causing him too lose control and be ejected will be permitted on the issue of proximate cause.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 2010 WL 2867899, at *4
citation_a.parenthetical: "absent a comparative negligence defense, a plaintiffs conduct is also relevant to establishing proximate cause."
citation_a.sentence: See id., 128 N.J. at 98, 607 A.2d at 644 (determining that plaintiffs actions were relevant to the issue of proximate cause even though jury could not consider conduct as evidence of contributory negligence); see also Madden v. Cosco, 2010 WL 2867899, at *4 (N.J.Super.A.D. July 19, 2010) (“absent a comparative negligence defense, a plaintiffs conduct is also relevant to establishing proximate cause.”) (citing Johansen, 128 N.J. at 97-99, 607 A.2d at 644). Likewise, defendant will also be permitted to introduce evidence of plaintiffs actions after he was ejected from the boat before contact with the engine’s propeller.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 128 N.J. 98, 98
citation_b.parenthetical: determining that plaintiffs actions were relevant to the issue of proximate cause even though jury could not consider conduct as evidence of contributory negligence
citation_b.sentence: See id., 128 N.J. at 98, 607 A.2d at 644 (determining that plaintiffs actions were relevant to the issue of proximate cause even though jury could not consider conduct as evidence of contributory negligence); see also Madden v. Cosco, 2010 WL 2867899, at *4 (N.J.Super.A.D. July 19, 2010) (“absent a comparative negligence defense, a plaintiffs conduct is also relevant to establishing proximate cause.”) (citing Johansen, 128 N.J. at 97-99, 607 A.2d at 644). Likewise, defendant will also be permitted to introduce evidence of plaintiffs actions after he was ejected from the boat before contact with the engine’s propeller.