Plaintiff Stephanie Ugaro was injured at work when a ceiling tile fell on her while she was in the bathroom. She sued the defendants who owned, managed and maintained the building where she worked under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The issue in Ugaro v. Livingston Circle Associates, L.P., 2023 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 381 (App. Div. Mar. 16, 2023) was whether the elements of res ipsa loquitur had been established so as to create a presumption of negligence by defendants.
Plaintiff had been employed by Verizon to work at a call center located in Livingston, New Jersey which was owned by defendant Livingston Circle Associates (“Livingston”) and managed by Eastman Management Corporation (“Eastman”). Pursuant to the lease between Verizon and Livingston, Livingston had the obligation to maintain all parts of the building which included replacing all plumbing in bathrooms.
One evening, plaintiff went into the women’s restroom on the third floor of the building. After she entered one of the stalls, the ceiling tile above the stall collapsed and struck her.
She sued the defendants, alleging that they were negligent in failing to provide safe premises to her as an employee of a tenant – a business invitee. The defendants certified that their investigation of the incident disclosed that the cause of the ceiling collapse was water leaking from a broken pipe. They determined that the water had leaked from the pipe, had accumulated on the ceiling tile above the third floor bathroom, which caused the tile to become saturated with water and collapse.
At the trial court level, defendants filed for a summary judgment, claiming that plaintiff could not show that they had been negligent because they had no notice that the broken pipe was leaking water. In opposition, the plaintiff argued the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur created a presumption of negligence and a jury should decide if defendants can rebut that presumption.
The trial court considered plaintiff’s argument and determined that the plaintiff had established two of the three elements necessary to establish res ipsa loquitur, i.e. that the building and its components, including the ceiling tile and pipes, were under the exclusive control of defendants and plaintiff’s injury was not the result of her own voluntary act or neglect. The third prong, however, was the issue, which was whether the occurrence “bespoke negligence.”
The trial court reasoned that plaintiff was unable to establish the third prong because the root cause of the ceiling collapse was not visible or accessible for purposes of inspection or repair without breaching a wall or floor. Plaintiff had failed to proffer any evidence as to the specific cause of the plumbing failure. She also did not offer an expert as to the “proper protocols, policies or procedures for inspection, testing or maintenance of a plumbing system in a commercial building of this character, including of piping that is obscured by walls, floors and ceilings.” Hence, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants.
The plaintiff appealed the summary judgment order and contended that she did establish all three elements for the application of the res ipsa loquitur presumption and that the case should have been decided by a jury whether defendants were liable.
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court decision. It agreed with the plaintiff that the three elements triggering the res ipsa loquitur inference were established. Thus, the question of whether defendants can rebut their presumption of negligence must be presented to a jury.
The Court pointed out that res ipsa loquitur “is an equitable doctrine that allows, in appropriate circumstances, a permissive inference of negligence to be drawn against a party who exercises control of premises with an unsafe condition that causes injury to another.” If this inference applies, it will ordinarily allow the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case and survive a motion to dismiss at the summary judgment stage. If the case goes to trial, and the jury is instructed on the res ipsa loquitur inference, the jury may accept or reject the inference.
The Appellate Division agreed that there was no dispute that plaintiff established two of the elements of the res ipsa loquitur inference. It was undisputed that defendants maintained exclusive control over the maintenance and upkeep of the building. Further, it was undisputed that plaintiff’s injuries were not the result of her own voluntary act or neglect. The remaining issue was whether “the occurrence itself ordinarily bespeaks negligence.”
The Court found that the focus of the defendants and the trial court was misplaced. It noted that plaintiff was injured by a falling ceiling tile and that a ceiling tile does not ordinarily fall, and if it does, that occurrence “bespeaks negligence.” The defendants’ proofs concerning the leaking pipe were not “so overwhelming that they destroy any reasonable inference of negligence.” The Appellate Division pointed out that the jury need not accept plaintiff’s inference that defendants were negligent and need not accept defendants’ contention that it would be unreasonable to inspect pipes which were within a wall.
The Court noted that once a res ipsa loquitur inference was established, the burden shifts to defendants to present countervailing proofs that were so overwhelming that they destroy any reasonable inference of negligence. Here, the defendants never offered any explanation as to why the pipe broke, nor were there any proofs in the record as to how long the pipe was leaking before sufficient water accumulated on the ceiling tile and caused the tile to fall on plaintiff. Plus, the Appellate Division found that “a reasonable jury could accept plaintiff’s inference of negligence and reject defendants’ arguments that it would be unreasonable for them to conduct an inspection of pipes in bathrooms, even pipes enclosed in walls.”
The Appellate Division also rejected the idea that an expert report was essential to plaintiff’s case. It noted that the facility manager testified that there was an access panel in one of the fourth floor bathrooms, which was easily opened and, at that point, one could see indications that water was leaking behind the wall. The facility manager explained that he would need to break through the wall to see the pipe itself, but that water damage could be seen before he broke the wall. Hence, the Court found that a jury could reasonably conclude that defendants were negligent in not conducting at least periodic inspections to look through the access panel.
Accordingly, the Appellate Division disagreed with the trial court’s decision. The Court found that the res ipsa loquitur inference should be charged to the jury “and the jury can determine whether it accepts the inference or accepts defendants’ explanation for why they were not negligent.” Therefore, the Court reversed the summary judgment order in favor of the defendants and remanded the matter for trial.
