Plaintiff Abdullah Alhababi was a guest at defendant Caesar’s Hotel when he was injured due to a showerhead screen that suddenly detached and fell on his head. It caused him to fall and lose consciousness. The issue in Alhababi v. Caesar’s N.J., Inc., 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 395 (App. Div. Mar. 14, 2025) was whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should have been applied to afford the plaintiff a permissive inference that his injuries were caused by defendant’s negligence.
On the day before the accident, plaintiff had checked into a 2-bedroom suite at the defendant’s hotel, accompanied by three friends. Each bedroom had its own adjoining bathroom and the living room also had its own bathroom. Two of the friends stayed in one bedroom while the other friend stayed in the living room adjoining the two bedrooms.
On the next morning, plaintiff turned on the shower in the bathroom adjacent to the room he was staying in and let the water run as he shaved and brushed his teeth. He noticed nothing amiss with the water coming out of the showerhead at that time. He then entered the shower which had two showerheads. One was on the wall and one was on the ceiling. He claimed that he did not touch or adjust the one on the ceiling at any time and did not believe he could have done so due to its height.
After he entered the shower, he was washing his face and the screen of the ceiling showerhead came loose, fell and hit him on the right side of his head. It caused him to lose his balance and fall backward. He claims that his body hit the bench, causing him to lose consciousness. He sued the defendant hotel for his injuries suffered as a result of this incident. He claimed that he was diagnosed with various head and spine injuries.
Plaintiff relied upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which, if established, would have afforded him a permissive inference that his injuries were caused by defendant’s negligence. At the close of evidence at the trial, plaintiff asked the trial judge to enter a judgment as to two of the three res ipsa loquitur elements. The trial judge granted judgment on one of the elements, ruling that plaintiff had not contributed to the occurrence of the incident causing his injuries.
However, he denied the motion with respect to the other element, declining to rule that defendant maintained exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused plaintiff’s injuries. Instead, he allowed the jury to make that determination. After deliberating, the jury returned a verdict for defendant. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and asked for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
These motions were thereafter appealed to the Appellate Division. Ultimately, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court’s rulings and affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
The Court explained that the owner of commercial property must exercise reasonable care in ensuring the safety of its invitees. However, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the property owner’s negligence caused her injuries. The Appellate Division explained that “when a plaintiff is unable to allege a defendant’s specific breach of duty, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows the factfinder to draw an inference of negligence against the defendant if they were in exclusive control of the object or means that caused the accident.”
For this doctrine to apply, the factfinder would need to find as follows:
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.
Here, the Appellate Division found that plaintiff was not entitled to the legal conclusion that defendant had exercised exclusive control of the showerhead as a matter of law. According to the hotel manager’s testimony, 64 guests made 71 reservations for the room in the 9 month period before the incident had occurred. All of these guests who occupied the subject hotel room had access to the showerhead.
Although the plaintiff’s testimony was that none of his friends used the shower before the incident, that does not establish as a matter of law that the showerhead was “not generally accessible or manipulable by the other guests staying with plaintiff.” Hence, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court that “reasonable minds could differ” as to whether plaintiff, his in-room guests or any other previous hotel guest could have manipulated the showerhead in such a way to cause the screen to fall.
Thus, the Court found that the matter was properly submitted to a jury and the jury’s “reasonable minds” did differ from the plaintiff’s presentation, specifically rejecting plaintiff’s contentions that the showerhead was “within the defendant’s exclusive control.” Accordingly, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply to create an inference of negligence against the defendant hotel.
Further, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court’s decision that plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to meet the significant burden to overturn the jury’s verdict. The Court noted that even if the evidence did establish defendant’s exclusive control, the res ipsa inference is simply permissive and the jury is free to accept or reject it. Thus, the Appellate Division concluded that the jury’s finding that defendant was not in exclusive control of the showerhead was supported by credible evidence in the record and its verdict was not a “miscarriage of justice.” Hence, the Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
