Plaintiff Artherine Price was at the Quaker Bridge Mall on May 10, 2018, when she twisted her ankle in the parking lot of the Mall. She claims that she fell in the crosswalk while walking from her parked car to enter the store and sued the Mall defendants for her injuries. The issue in Price v. Quaker Bridge Mall, LLC., 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 591 (App. Div. April 10, 2024) was whether the plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed due to her failure to identify the exact cause of her injury.
Plaintiff testified that her ankle twisted, and she almost fell as she was in the crosswalk. She could not identify the exact location of where the incident occurred within the crosswalk. She also testified that she never saw anything in the crosswalk, before or after the incident that caused her to twist her ankle. Even after the incident, when she returned to the crosswalk with the security guard, she was unable to point to the specific spot where the incident occurred. The best she could state was that the incident occurred in an area where the pavement was cracked. Hence, she believed that the cracked or broken pavement caused her to twist her ankle.
The Mall defendants filed for a summary judgment dismissal based upon the plaintiff’s deposition testimony. The trial court judge found that there was no dispute that plaintiff was injured in the Mall’s parking lot. However, the issue was that plaintiff could not establish causation. Even when she went to the location a few days later and took photographs, she was unable to identify any particular cause. Because the mere happening of an accident was insufficient to establish negligence, the trial court judge granted defendants’ summary judgment motion.
The plaintiff appealed that decision to the Appellate Division.
Upon appeal, Plaintiff acknowledged that her deposition testimony had inconsistencies regarding causation and that a jury could conclude at trial that such inconsistencies adversely affected her credibility. Plaintiff argued that they did not provide a basis for the trial court judge to disregard her testimony and grant defendant’s summary judgment.
The Appellate Division noted that proximate causation is a basic element of tort law. The court stated that “[to] establish causation a plaintiff must prove the defendant’s act or omission was both the factual and proximate cause of his or her injury.” It would be the factual cause if, but for the event, the injury probably would not have happened.
Here, the Appellate Division was convinced that defendants were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The Court noted “that [t]he judge’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record and reveal there is no dispute of fact regarding causation.” The Court further pointed out that plaintiff was unable to establish that “but for” defendants’ actions or omission she would not have twisted her ankle because she cannot establish what condition caused her to twist her ankle.
Accordingly, the Appellate Division found that she failed to make a showing sufficient to establish causation, which is an essential element of her case. Therefore, the Court agreed that defendants were entitled to summary judgment and affirmed the trial court decision, dismissing her lawsuit.
