Plaintiff, Harrison JC, LLC, a limited liability company, owned Unit 302 in Harrison Bridge Plaza, a 4-story condominium with commercial units on the first floor and residential units on the remaining floors. Plaintiff Harrison bought the unit in February 2010 and had leased it to various tenants. The unit experienced water seepage and leakage from the ceiling of its unit on 11 occasions from April 2014 through March 2021. Plaintiff sued the unit owners above its unit, as well as the condominium association, HB Association, and Patrician Associates Management, the manager of the condominium association for the damage resulting from the leaks. The issue in Harrison JC, LLC v. Harrison Bridge Plaza Condominium Association, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1895 (App. Div. Aug. 7, 2024) was whether the plaintiff could pursue its claim for property damage from the water seepage and leakage without the retention of an expert.
The units above the plaintiff’s unit were owned by Claudia Santos and Joel Costas, Unit 401, and Ying Zi Zhu, Unit 403. Per the Master Deed, unit owners’ responsibilities were limited to the interior of the walls, ceilings, and floor surfaces of their units. The common elements, including roofs, parking lot and lobby, were owned and controlled by HB Association and were managed and maintained by defendant Patrician under a contract.
Plaintiff Harrison filed a lawsuit, claiming that it suffered property damage, loss of rental income, and out of pocket expenses when its unit experienced water seepage and leakage from the ceiling of its unit. It is undisputed that the leaks happened and that all but the final leak was repaired. Plaintiff claimed that the leaks originated in either Unit 401, Unit 403, or the common elements of the building. It sued HB Association based upon negligence and its duty to maintain and repair the common elements of the building. It sued Patrician based upon a breach of a contractual obligation to maintain and repair the common elements of the building and, last, it sued the unit owners for negligence for creating or failing to repair the leaks in their units that damaged plaintiff’s unit.
However, plaintiff failed to retain an expert to offer any opinion with respect to the cause or origin of any of the leaks. At the close of discovery, all defendants filed for a summary judgment. They argued that plaintiff was unable to establish liability without an expert opinion. Plaintiff, in opposing the motion, argued that an expert opinion was not necessary under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
The trial court granted summary judgment to each of the defendants. It found that plaintiff was unable to establish liability without an expert report and found the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply to plaintiff’s claims and that “the jury could not be left to speculate as to the cause and origin of the leaks and whether defendants’ negligence was the cause of damage to plaintiff’s unit.”
This decision was appealed. Plaintiff argued that the court should have taken judicial notice that water flows downward, and water does not normally come through the ceiling of a residential unit unless there is some defect or negligence in the area above the unit causing the leak and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should have relieved plaintiff of its obligation to produce an expert report to prove negligence as to HB Association and Patrician.
The Appellate Division noted that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, if properly evoked, would enable a plaintiff to make out a prima facia case of negligence by allowing for the inference of negligence from undisputed facts. However, the doctrine would only be applicable where “(a) the occurrence itself ordinarily bespeaks negligence; (b) the instrumentality was within the defendant’s exclusive control; and (c) there is no indication in the circumstances that the injury was the result of the plaintiff’s own voluntary act or neglect.” Finally, the doctrine would not be applicable where the injured party fails to exclude other possible causes of the injury.
The Appellate Division agreed with the trial court decision that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable to the facts of this case. The Court found that “it is not within the common knowledge of the average juror that the acts of HB Association and Patrician, as the entities with control of the common elements of the building, were more likely than not the cause of the leakage in plaintiff’s unit.” The Appellate Division found that without expert testimony to opine as to the origin and cause of the leaks, “jurors would be left to speculate as to whether HB Association and Patrician’s conduct negligently caused damage to plaintiff’s property.” Finally, the Appellate Division noted that the design and maintenance of this condominium and the origin and cause of leaks in the building would not be matters within the ken of the average juror.
Further, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence of the location of the leaks in its unit. The leaks could have derived from the common areas, the units above Plaintiff’s unit, or from plaintiff’s unit as a result of acts by plaintiff’s tenants. The Court found that expert testimony was necessary to prove that the leaks originated in an area within the exclusive control of HB Association or Patrician. Without such expert testimony, a jury could not exclude plaintiff or its tenants as the negligent actors in causing the leaks without engaging in speculation.
Thus, the Appellate Division agreed that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable to the plaintiff’s claim. Because the plaintiff did not produce an expert report to offer an opinion as to the cause or origin of the leaks, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court decision, dismissing the lawsuit.
