Plaintiff Chris Williams filed a lawsuit against defendant QuickChek Corp. when his right hand was burned as a result of hot water melting a Styrofoam cup. Although the plaintiff pled a premises liability cause of action, the complaint did not include a claim against QuickChek based upon the Products Liability Act (“PLA”). The issue in Williams v. QuickChek Corp., 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3238 (App. Div. Dec. 30, 2024) was whether the complaint should be dismissed based upon the plaintiff’s failure to plead a claim under the Products Liability Act.
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against QuickChek based upon an incident that occurred in December 2021 at the QuickChek in Wayne, New Jersey. He claimed that his right hand was burned as a result of hot water melting a Styrofoam cup which caused him injury and disability. Almost two years later, on January 9, 2023, he filed a lawsuit against QuickChek, asserting that defendant was responsible for the care and maintenance of the premises and that it negligently maintained, repaired and/or controlled the premises so as to permit a hazard, a nuisance and a trap for persons lawfully on the premises. Plaintiff further claimed that as a result of the carelessness, recklessness and/or negligence of defendant, he suffered a burn when the Styrofoam cup melted.
After the lawsuit was filed, QuickChek moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The defendant argued that this case was not a premises liability case. Rather, it was a product liability action and plaintiff failed to plead a claim under the PLA and that, under New Jersey law, all common law claims were subsumed by the PLA. The trial court judge agreed with the defendant’s argument and dismissed the lawsuit.
The judge also held that, because the two year statute of limitations had run under the PLA, it would be futile to permit the plaintiff to amend the complaint. This dismissal was appealed to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division noted that the PLA is the exclusive remedy for personal injury claims arising out of product use. This statute “is intended to protect users from harm caused by defective products by ‘establishing clear rules’ in actions for damages for harm caused by products.” The Court noted that the PLA “imposes liability upon the manufacturer or seller for a products’ manufacturing defects, warning defects, and design defects.” Further, the Appellate Division pointed out that the Legislature “established a unified theory of recovery for harm caused by products.” Thus, the PLA subsumes claims for a defective product under the Consumer Fraud Act, as well as any alternative remedy for injuries such as negligence and breach of implied warranty.
Thus, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court judge in dismissing the complaint. The focus of plaintiff’s claim was clearly on a defective Styrofoam cup that melted when hot water was poured into it. The Appellate Division found that the plaintiff should have brought the claim pursuant to the PLA which was the “exclusive remedy” for personal injuries arising out of the use of a product. Instead, plaintiff asserted a claim as a premises liability negligence claim which claim is subsumed under the PLA. Further, the Appellate Division noted that claiming that a party negligently maintained its premises “is not the same thing – not even close – as alleging it sold a defective product.” Thus, the trial court’s decision was affirmed, dismissing the complaint.
