Notable Wins

Client: Wawa

Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County

Brief/Oral Argument Attorney: Voris M. Tejada, Jr., Esq. 

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Plaintiff Hicks sued Wawa for negligence arising out of a slip and fall which occurred in a Berlin Wawa store on December 14, 2019. Both parties acknowledged that on the date of Plaintiff’s fall, it was rainy. Video surveillance footage showed that from the exterior of the store, Plaintiff first entered into a vestibule, and from there passed through another door to the store interior. Plaintiff’s fall occurred as she was stepping into the store interior from the vestibule, approximately one step into the store. Notably, the door Plaintiff utilized to enter the store from the vestibule displayed a red, octagon-shaped sign which read “CAUTION! Floor May Be Slippery. Your Safety is Important to Wawa.” While Plaintiff acknowledged the sign was there, she testified she never saw the sign. Although Plaintiff saw no water on the ground prior to her fall, she testified that after her fall, she observed water on the ground and felt that her clothing was wet.

Capehart Scatchard, on behalf of Wawa, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that by placing the above-referenced sign on the very door Plaintiff used to enter the store, Wawa provided a sufficient warning of the alleged dangerous condition (water), thus satisfying any duty owed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff argued that because the door contained other signage, in the form of Wawa promotional material, which might have distracted Plaintiff from seeing the CAUTION sign, it was up to a jury to determine whether the warning given by Wawa was sufficient. In response, Wawa noted that per Plaintiff’s own deposition testimony, she was not paying attention to anything on the door, or elsewhere in her surroundings, as she entered the store. As such, there was no evidence Plaintiff was distracted by other signage on the door. After oral argument, the Court found that there was no evidence Wawa had been negligent in any manner or breached any duty owed to Plaintiff. The Court thus granted Wawa’s Motion, dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice.

Client: Hamilton Township and 16 Hamilton Township police officers 

Court: USDC, District of New Jersey 

Brief Attorney: Charles F. Holmgren, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Plaintiff Ronald Saintil sued Hamilton Township and several of its police officers for an illegal search and seizure, excessive use of force, and several other claims because, at the request of outside local law enforcement and a search warrant, Hamilton activated its SWAT team to secure Saintil and his apartment to assist in a criminal investigation. On behalf of Hamilton Township and its police officers, we successfully presented a motion for summary judgment arguing that Hamilton and its officers conducted a lawful search of Saintil’s apartment and that the force used by Hamilton’s officers was reasonable under the circumstances.

Client: Insured homeowner in Garfield, NJ

Court: Bergen County Superior Court, Hackensack, NJ.

Trial Attorney: Christopher J. Hoare, Esq.

Brief Attorney: Christina M. Dewland, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Plaintiff Miller was a former neighbor who returned to the insured’s neighborhood for a surprise visit, after moving away approximately six (6) months prior. Plaintiff and the insured were not friends, never socialized, nor did any activities together. They were just acquaintance neighbors.  Plaintiff did not have the insured’s phone number, so she did not call him to make him aware of her visit. The insured who had no idea that Plaintiff was coming over, had no interactions with Plaintiff in the last six (6) months since she had moved. It is noteworthy that Plaintiff had never been in the insured’s home, had never been invited over to the insured’s home, and was never told she could come over unannounced. Plaintiff was familiar with the insured’s Pitbull and believed the dog to be unfriendly.

On the date of the accident, Plaintiff went to the insured’s home unannounced and knocked loudly on his front door. Getting no answer, Plaintiff alleges she then commenced banging on the front window and vinyl siding of the insured’s home yelling his name in a loud voice as she made her way to the rear gate to the backyard.  The insured’s entire Property was fenced with a chain link fence and a secured front gate.  In addition, the backyard was surrounded by a 6 foot high white vinyl privacy fence with a locked gate and warning signs saying “WARNING. GUARD DOG. NO TRESPASSING.” In addition, on the date of accident, there were locks and chains on both gates and fences.  The insured’s warning sign on the gate to the rear yard measured 18” by 20” and included a large red typeface. On the date of the accident, both gates to the insured’s Property were closed, latched, and secured by chains.

Plaintiff proceeded into the insured’s backyard, ignoring warning signs, lifted a safety chain, unlatched the lock securing the gate in its closed position, and entered the back yard without knowing where the insured’s dog was located.   The insured’s Pitbull subsequently bit Plaintiff’s forearm, knocking her to the ground and breaking her teeth. Plaintiff sued the insured under the New Jersey Dog-Bite Statute [NJSA 4:19-16].  Under this statute, a dog owner is strictly liable to any person his/her dog bites, regardless of the viciousness of the dog (if all elements are met).

After a four day trial, the jury unanimously determined that Plaintiff was a trespasser in the insured’s backyard and therefore, the Dog Bite Statute didn’t apply.  Verdict in favor of the Defense.