Full Service Law Firm in Mt. Laurel Township, NJ | Capehart Scatchard

negligence

View OTHER BLOGS

Summary Judgment Dismissal Affirmed Based Upon Storm In Progress Doctrine

Plaintiff Glenn Weidlich slipped and fell outside the front door of his condominium unit due to ice on the landing and fell down the stairs.  He sued the defendants, 313-319 First Street Condo Association Inc. and Clinton Hill Condo Association, among other defendants, claiming that they were negligent due to the unsafe condition of the exterior front stairs of the building.  At the time of his fall, there had been freezing rain.  The issue in Weidlich v. 313-319 First Street Condo Association, Inc., 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1366 (App. Div. July 22, 2025) was whether the ongoing storm rule immunized the condo association defendants from negligence for their failure to remove the ice from the stairs or whether one of the two exceptions to the ongoing storm rule applied.

Plaintiff owned and lived in the condominium unit located at 357 8th Street, Jersey City.  On the morning of January 5, 2022, as he stepped outside his front door, he slipped on ice on the landing and fell down the stairs.  Due to his fall, he suffered a torn patella tendon and underwent surgery.

Plaintiff sued the defendants, alleging negligence and premises liability.  He claimed that due to the unsafe condition of the exterior front of the stairs, he was caused to slip and fall on the steps.

At the conclusion of discovery, defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff fell solely because of the ongoing freezing rain and icy condition on the landing that morning and that they were immune due to the ongoing storm doctrine. 

The trial court found that plaintiff did slip and fall during an ongoing storm event.  It noted that the ongoing storm rule immunized “commercial landowners from negligence if they fail to remove an accumulation of snow and ice from public walkways during an ongoing storm,” citing to the Supreme Court Pareja v. Princeton International Properties case.  Further, the trial court found that neither exception to the ongoing storm rule was applicable.

This appeal ensued.  Unfortunately, for the plaintiff, the Appellate Division did agree with the trial court decision.

Plaintiff contended that the exceptions to the ongoing storm rule would prevent its application in his case.  He argued that there was a pre-existing dangerous condition of the stairs and that, further, the condition of the stairs was caused by a lack of maintenance and the recent paint job completed on the steps and landing. 

The Appellate Division noted the Supreme Court’s ongoing storm rule which affected the duty commercial landowners had to remove snow and ice accumulations and pathways during a storm.   The rationale of this rule was that “it is categorically inexpedient and impractical to remove or reduce hazards from snow and ice while the precipitation is ongoing.”  Thus, in Pareja, the Supreme Court held that “absent unusual circumstances, a commercial landowner’s duty to remove snow and ice hazards arises not during the storm, but rather within a reasonable time after the storm.” 

However, the Pareja Court did identify two exceptions to the ongoing storm rule that may impose a duty on a commercial landowner.  Under the first exception, a commercial landowner may be liable if his or her actions increased the risk to pedestrians and invitees on the property by, for example, creating unusual circumstances in which the defendant’s conduct exacerbated and increased the risk of injury to the plaintiff.  Under the second exception, a commercial landowner may be liable where there was a pre-existing risk on the premises before the storm.  Under the second exception, a landowner may be liable for an injury during a later ongoing storm if it “failed to remove or reduce a pre-existing risk on the property.”

In this case, neither party argued that the defendants did not have a duty to maintain the stairs outside defendant’s condominium and clear ice and snow for them.  The dispute focused, instead, on whether one of the exceptions to the ongoing storm rule applied. 

The plaintiff argued that defendants’ conduct created and increased the risk by not addressing the deterioration of the surface of the steps which allowed water infiltration and imperceptible freezing to occur over the surface; second, that the wrong paint was used during a recent paint job which, in plaintiff’s opinion, made the steps sleeker and harder to negotiate when wet; and, third, affixing the handrails next to the steps too far from the pedestrian pathway.

The Appellate Division noted that the plaintiff admitted that he never reached any of the steps because he fell on the landing outside his front door that morning due to the icy conditions.  As for the condition of the steps, plaintiff admitted that there had been no precipitation on the days before he slipped and fell but that there was precipitation in the form of freezing rain and snow at the time of his fall.  But, regardless of the condition of the steps, the plaintiff fell on the landing before he reached the steps.  Therefore, the pre-existing condition of the steps did not satisfy any exception to the rule. 

As for the handrails, although plaintiff had an expert on that point, the expert report failed to provide any support for his conclusion that the handrails were too far away from the walking pathway to allow plaintiff to utilize them to stabilize himself or help him regain his balance after slipping on the ice.  The Court found that it was a bare conclusion, not supported by any credible evidence on the record.  Thus, the Court found it to be an inadmissible net opinion.

With respect to plaintiff’s lay opinion that the paint job made the landing more slippery, the Court also rejected that argument as satisfying one of the exceptions to the storm in progress rule. The defendants argued that an expert was needed to explain how the type of paint used made the steps more slippery.   Plaintiff’s expert offered no opinion as to this assertion and the Court found that this conclusion required expert testimony.  The Appellate Division found that, without an expert, the record failed to establish any nexus between the paint job and plaintiff’s fall.

For the above reasons, the Court agreed that the ongoing storm rule applied and none of the exceptions to the rule applied.  Thus, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of the lawsuit.

Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Lawsuit Due to Inability to Identify Why Floor Was Slippery

Plaintiff Ann Brilliant slipped and fell inside an Outback Steakhouse but did not know how or why she slipped.  She was unable to identify any specific hazardous condition of the floor or deviation from accepted safety standards.  The issue in Brilliant v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87014 (D.N.J. May 7, 2025) was whether summary judgment should be granted to the defendant Outback Steakhouse due to plaintiff’s failure to identify why the floor was slippery and what caused her to fall.

Plaintiff had met her friend Darsell Pigford for dinner at an Outback Steakhouse in Deptford, New Jersey.  As she was walking to her table, she slipped and fell, breaking her arm and leg.

She testified at her deposition that she did not notice any substance on the floor that caused her to slip.  Rather, she guessed that “the floor was slippery because it had a wax residue on it that made it feel like a sheet of ice.”  However, she denied seeing or feeling any wax residue on the floor.  Plaintiff’s friend, Ms. Pigford, also testified in a deposition that she frequently ate at this Outback and that the floor always seemed slippery but, she was unaware of any particular condition that made the floor slippery.  Although, on one of her prior visits, she had apparently alerted restaurant staff about the slipperiness of the floor.

At the conclusion of discovery, Outback moved for summary judgment, arguing that, as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could find that it negligently maintained its floor.  The District Court found that plaintiff could not survive summary judgment “because she has failed to present evidence outside her and her witnesses’ own subjective characterizations that Outback maintained its floor negligently.”

The Court relied on prior New Jersey case law which held that “the mere fact that a plaintiff falls on a waxed floor is not enough to infer negligence; instead, the plaintiff has to show that the way the floor was waxed – in terms of the nature or quantity of the substance used, or in the matter or time of its application – was such a departure from the normal or generally accepted standards as to create a hazard of a tortious character for the lawful users of the premises.” 

Here, plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that the floor was negligently waxed, or that it was waxed at all.  The Court also pointed to out of state decisions in which courts have held that a plaintiff cannot prevail on a negligence claim when she fails to offer any evidence that the floors were excessively slippery, “other than subjective characterizations about the appearance of the floor.”

Plaintiff had also argued that summary judgment should be denied because Outback failed to produce in discovery a completed opening and closing inspection checklist, as well as a completed facilities inspection checklist.  Instead, Outback had only produced a blank version of the opening checklist.  Plaintiff argued that defendant’s failure to preserve these records should create a negative inference that it either never created the records or that the records were destroyed because they were harmful for the defendant. 

The District Court disagreed with that argument.  Plaintiff had never objected in discovery to Outback’s failure to produce these completed versions of the checklist from the day of the accident.  Further, the Court noted that production of the completed checklists, even if they did exist, would not create a triable dispute of fact.  At most, the checklist would establish that inspections were conducted but not what if anything was observed during the inspections, let alone that any hazardous condition was or should have been detected.

The Court concluded that the undisputed evidence was that there was no admissible evidence of a dangerous hazard on the floor and, as such, the argument that any hazard could have been identified or remedied by an inspection procedure was speculative.  Thus, the District Court granted summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

  • Trial

Court Denies Defendant Motorist Request for Mockler Jury Charge

Plaintiff Melissa Presbery was stopped at a red light when she was rear ended by defendant Jason Willitts.  Willitts was unable to stop due to a wet roadway.  The issue in Presbery v. Willitts, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 406 (App. Div. Mar. 17, 2025) was whether the trial court correctly denied the defendant’s request for a Mockler jury charge, as well as some other trial errors alleged by the defendant.

According to the defendant’s testimony, he could not recall if it was raining but the roadway was wet because it had rained.  He was in the right hand lane and observed the red traffic light as he approached the intersection where plaintiff was stopped.  He noticed fewer vehicles in the left lane, so he moved into that lane.  As he was slowing down for the red light, he could not control his vehicle and his car hydroplaned, could not stop and he lost control.  His car subsequently collided into the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle.

In his pretrial Memorandum, defendant requested a jury charge pursuant to Mockler v. Russman. The proposed charge would have read as follows: “[i]f a driver is operating [their] car as would a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances, [they are] not to be held negligent merely because [their] car skidded or slid, resulting in damage or injury to another.” 

Following the trial testimony, the court conducted a charge conference to discuss charges to be read to the jury and the defendant again requested the Mockler charge.  The trial court denied the defendant’s request, stating that the jury would get to decide whether defendant was acting as a reasonable and prudent person whether the Mockler charge was there or not.  The trial court judge distinguished Mockler, finding that defendant was aware of the wet roadway, and he did not “suddenly” come upon the condition.

The trial court judge concluded that defense counsel was permitted to argue that defendant was not doing anything wrong and that he was acting as a reasonably prudent person. (There was also an issue with the defendant’s request for an aggravation charge which will not be discussed in this article.)

The jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded non-economic damages in the amount of $240,000.  Defendant moved for a new trial, arguing that the court made a mistake in not giving the Mockler charge and also improperly utilizing an aggravation charge.

This appeal ensued, with defendant arguing that the court made a mistake in denying his request for a Mockler charge.

The Appellate Division found that Mockler, which was decided over 50 years ago, has never required that a trial court provide the Mockler charge.  The Court found in this case, that the jury did not lack a basis to find defendant’s inability to stop was anything other than negligence.  It was given an appropriate negligence charge regarding the operation of a motor vehicle.  The jury was instructed that automobile drivers are “required to use reasonable care in the control and management of their vehicles.”  As for defendant negotiating the wet roadway, the jury was further instructed that “a driver is required to make such observations for traffic in road conditions, and to exercise such judgment to avoid collision or injury to others on the highway as a reasonably prudent person would have done in circumstances.”

The Appellate Division pointed out that the plaintiff was free to argue in her closing argument that defendant failed to exercise due care, just as defendant was able to argue that he exercised reasonable care under the circumstances, including navigating the wet road.  Hence, the jury was able to consider both parties’ arguments regarding the road conditions and determine whether defendant exercised due care under the circumstances.  Hence, the Appellate Division found that there was no requirement that the Court provide defendant’s personally crafted proposed Mockler charge.

The Court denied the defendant’s other requests as well and upheld the trial court’s decisions, as well as the jury verdict.

Municipality Found to Have No Liability for Injury Caused by Trip on Uneven Boards on Boardwalk

Plaintiff Jessica Feeney tripped and fell while walking on the boardwalk in the City of Atlantic City.  She sued the City claiming that she tripped on uneven boards and that the City was negligent in causing the dangerous condition and that it failed to timely repair the condition.  The issue in Feeney v. City of Atlantic City, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 421 (App. Div. Mar. 19, 2025) was whether the City could be liable for either causing or failing to repair the boardwalk before the plaintiffs’ accident.

This accident occurred on August 30, 2019, when plaintiff was walking on the boardwalk in the City near the Showboat Hotel.  Plaintiff testified that there was a raised board and her right foot rolled on the uneven board and her leg buckled.   She tripped, fell and injured herself.  She denied noticing the uneven board before she fell.  After the accident, her husband went back and took photos which showed that there was one board that was lower than the adjacent board with a displacement of approximately 1 inch. 

She and her husband sued the City, claiming that the City was negligent in causing the condition on the boardwalk and in failing to timely repair the uneven board.  She retained a liability expert, Arthur Chew, who reviewed the photographs and opined that there was a hazardous condition.  He also opined that the City’s police vehicles and public works vehicles that ride on the boardwalk placed high stresses in the boardwalk and they may cause the boards to become uneven. 

The expert relied upon testimony from City employees who explained that the boards could become uneven for numerous reasons which included weather, shifting of the boardwalk foundation, sand being pushed up against the underside of the boardwalk and vehicles going across the boardwalk.  Displacements of more than a ¼ of an inch between boards were something that needed to be looked at.  The City also admitted that any vehicle on the boardwalk does damage.

The City filed for summary judgment, arguing that it was shielded from liability under the Tort Claims Act.  It asserted that it had no actual or constructive notice of the uneven boards where plaintiff fell.  It also argued that its conduct in inspecting the boardwalk, which was approximately 4½ miles long, was not palpably unreasonable.  Finally, it contended that the uneven boards or raised boards did not constitute a dangerous condition as defined by the Act.

The trial court granted the summary judgment and dismissed the case.  It found that the uneven condition of the boards did constitute a dangerous condition.  However, there was no evidence that the City caused the dangerous condition.  It found plaintiffs’ liability expert’s opinion to be speculative because there were no facts to support that the City had caused the boards to become uneven. Knowing that vehicles might cause the boardwalk to become uneven in certain places did not establish that the boards where plaintiff tripped became uneven because a vehicle drove on those boards.  Further, there were no facts to establish when the boards became uneven and, thus, a jury could not conclude that the City failed to repair the dangerous condition in a reasonable period of time. 

Finally, the trial court also concluded that the City had not acted palpably unreasonably.  The trial court pointed out that the City had an inspector who regularly inspected the boardwalk and plaintiff had presented no evidence that the City should have discovered the uneven boards before plaintiffs’ accident. 

This summary judgment dismissal was appealed to the Appellate Division.  Plaintiff argued that a trial court should not have granted summary judgment because there were material disputed facts concerning whether the City created the dangerous condition that caused her fall.  Further they argued that their expert’s opinions were not net opinions and were supported by the factual evidence.  However, the Appellate Division rejected these arguments and affirmed the trial court decision.

The Court noted that the City, as a public entity, was only liable for negligence as permitted under the Tort Claims Act.  To establish liability, the Appellate Division noted that the plaintiff must prove as follows:

1.         A dangerous condition existed on the property at the time of the injury.

2.         The dangerous condition proximally caused the injury.

3.         The dangerous condition caused a foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred.

4.         The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient time prior to the injury to correct the dangerous condition.

5.         The action or inaction taken by the public entity to protect against the dangerous condition was palpably unreasonable.

Here, the Appellate Division noted that there was no evidence that the City had actual knowledge of the uneven boards.  Instead, the plaintiffs’ argument was that the City knew that vehicles drove on the boardwalk, that vehicles might cause the boards to become uneven, and that the City’s vehicles going across the boardwalk likely created the uneven boards.  However, the Court found that there was no evidence from which a jury could find that the City had actual or constructive notice of this condition.  It pointed out that “[k]nowing that a boardwalk stretching more than 4 miles can be damaged on various times and various causes, including vehicles driving on or across the boardwalk, does not constitute actual or constructive knowledge of this specific dangerous condition that caused [plaintiff] to fall.”

As for plaintiffs’ theory that the City should have inspected and found the uneven boards, the Court pointed out that the problem with this theory is that plaintiffs have no evidence as to how long the boards were uneven.  Plaintiffs’ liability expert was never able to identify when the boards became uneven.  Rather, he merely speculated that the City should have discovered the uneven boards if they conduct a regular inspection.  The Court found that without knowing when the boards became uneven, a jury would have no basis to find that the City had “a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”

As for the last prong as to whether the City acted palpably unreasonable, the plaintiffs’ best argument was that the City should have discovered the uneven inspections where plaintiff fell by conducting more regular inspections.  However, the City did inspect for dangerous conditions on the boardwalk and there was no evidence from which a jury could find that the City’s failure to conduct more inspections was palpably unreasonable.

The Appellate Division also rejected the expert’s opinion that the City’s vehicles created the damage to the boards.  The Court pointed out that there were no facts to support this opinion.

Thus, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court’s decision and affirmed the summary judgment dismissal in favor of the City of Atlantic City.

Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine Found Not to Apply to Plaintiff’s Injury Caused by Falling Showerhead Screen

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.

Court Rules That County Not Vicariously Liable for the Alleged Negligent Acts of Its Independent Contractor

Plaintiff Wiggins Plastics, Inc. sued the County of Passaic and its contractor Assuncao Brothers, Inc. (“Assuncao”) for damages claimed to its property following the effects of Hurricane Ida.  Plaintiffs claimed that their properties were damaged due to the negligent acts related to a bridge replacement project, contracted by the County of Passaic to defendant Assuncao Brothers.  Plaintiffs alleged that the County was vicariously liable for its supervisory role over its contractor.  The issue in Wiggins Plastics, Inc. v. County of Passaic, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 224 (Law Div. Feb 6, 2025) was whether the County was immune from vicarious liability for the negligent acts of its independent contractor under the Tort Claims Act.

The County had engaged Assuncao as an independent contractor in the Kingsland Road Bridge replacement project.  Plaintiffs alleged that the effects of Hurricane Ida caused flooding and subsequent damages which, in part, were due to the negligent acts related to this bridge replacement project. 

The County filed for a summary judgment dismissal, arguing that it cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligent acts of its independent contractor.  Under the Tort Claims Act, public entities can be held vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of their employees (N.J.S.A. 59:2-2(a)).  However, the Tort Claims Act expressly excludes independent contractors from the definition of “public employee” under Section N.J.S.A. 59:1-3.  Further, the trial court, in deciding the motion for summary judgment, noted that this distinction as to liability has been consistently upheld by the courts, finding that public entities are not liable for the actions of its independent contractors.

In this case, plaintiffs did concede that Assuncao was an independent contractor.  The court found that plaintiffs did not identify any applicable exception that would impose liability on the County, “nor have they presented specific facts that could establish vicarious liability and preclude summary judgment at this stage.”  Further, they have not demonstrated that the County had a non-delegable duty that would impose liability despite Assuncao’s status as an independent contractor.

For these reasons, the trial court found that the County was entitled to summary judgment for Plaintiffs’ claims against it which were based upon vicarious liability for Assuncao’s actions. 

Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Claim Caused by Fall in Pothole Located in Crosswalk

Plaintiff Nelly Reis a/k/a Nelly Gonclaves and her husband filed a lawsuit against the City of Newark for her personal injuries.  She alleged that she tripped and fell in a pothole, a couple of feet outside of a crosswalk, while she was crossing an intersection in the City of Newark.  The issue in Reis v. City of Newark, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3053 (App. Div. Dec. 17, 2024) was whether plaintiff was able to establish that Newark had constructive notice of the pothole and, hence, could be liable for the injuries she suffered due to her fall.

On the date of the accident, Nelly parked her car and walked to her office located on Rome Street.  She parked on the corner of Rome Street and Niagara Street because she could not park on Niagara Street due to street cleaning.  While walking to work, she crossed the intersection of Rome and Niagara outside of the crosswalk.  She tripped and fell in a pothole that was a couple feet outside of the crosswalk and about 100 feet from her office.  As a result of her fall, she suffered injuries.

She testified in her deposition that while she was familiar with the neighborhood, she did not recall seeing the pothole on Rome Street before she fell.  Nelly filed a tort claim notice against the City of Newark and subsequently filed this lawsuit.  She claimed that the large pothole in the roadway created a dangerous condition.

After discovery concluded, Newark filed a motion for summary judgment.  It argued that it lacked actual notice of the pothole before the accident and only became aware of the pothole after it received Nelly’s tort claim notice.  After receiving notice, the City sent a crew to repair it. 

Plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, submitted her own deposition testimony and Affidavits from three coworkers who stated that they were familiar with this pothole and it had existed for a long period of time, many months, prior to her accident.  She also submitted Google Earth images of this intersection which showed the pothole existing before the accident.      

Nevertheless, the motion judge granted Newark’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed the decision, arguing that Newark had constructive notice of the pothole and that her complaint should not have been dismissed.

This personal injury claim is governed by the Tort Claims Act, under which plaintiff must prove that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the accident, that it proximately caused the injury, the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred and that either a negligent or wrongful act or omission of the public employee created or knew about the dangerous condition or that it had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.  (N.J.S.A. 59:4-2) Hence, the critical inquiry in this case was whether Newark had constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the pothole. 

The plaintiff argued that there were genuine material facts in dispute and that she should be entitled to present her case to a jury.  The Appellate Division noted that under the Tort Claims Act, a public entity is liable for potholes or depression in the roadway “only when the public entity is on actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition; and the public entity’s failure to protect against the roadway defect is palpably unreasonable.”  A public entity is only deemed to have constructive notice of the dangerous condition when the plaintiff is able to establish “that the condition had existed for such a period of time and was of such an obvious nature that the public entity, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the condition and its dangerous character.”

Plaintiff argued that she did provide evidence sufficient to prove the existence of the pothole before the accident.  However, the Appellate Division found that there was no evidence in the record that Newark had any notice of the pothole at the time of her fall.  Further, it found that the evidence she submitted fell “short of the competent evidence necessary to show Newark had constructive notice of the pothole.”

The Court noted that simply the admission of Google Earth photographs was not sufficient.  Plaintiff failed to offer any testimony as to whether the images were satellite or real images or when the images were captured and if any of the images were altered.

Thus, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court decision.  It found no reason to reverse the judge’s conclusion because plaintiff had failed to meet her burden and establish that Newark had or should have had constructive notice of the pothole on Rome Street.  Thus, the summary judgment decision was affirmed.

Plaintiff Permitted to Pursue Personal Injury Claim Against Apartment Owner and Tenant Due to Injury Caused by Deficient Stair Railing

Plaintiff Nicolette Pippis was injured when she slipped and fell while leaving a building owned by defendant PDC, after visiting defendant MKG, a tenant in the building.  She claimed that, as she walked down the stairs, she was holding onto the handrail.  The handrail ended short of a few steps which she claimed caused her to slip and fall.  The issue in Pippis v. PDC 16-20 Hudson Place Realty, LLC, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2108 (App. Div. Sept. 6, 2024) was whether plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence on the issue of proximate causation to have her case presented to a jury.

Plaintiff, who was 9 months pregnant at the time, had been at the building for a prenatal massage at MKG, which was located on the second floor in the building.  As she walked down the steps to leave the building, she fell near the bottom of the steps, breaking her ankle.   She claimed that, as she walked down the stairs, she was holding onto the handrail.  When she got towards the bottom steps, the railing ended and there was no lighting, causing her to miss the step and fall.  She testified in her deposition that she attempted to grab for the handrail, but the railing cut short a few steps.  She denied that she tripped.

Plaintiff presented an opinion from an architectural expert that the handrail for the stairs did not extend over the entire bottom tread and stopped short of the edge of the final step by 2½ inches.  He explained that current building codes would require the handrail for these steps to extend at least 10¼ inches past the bottom step.  He opined that Plaintiff lost her balance and fell at the bottom of the stairway because the handrail was short and she could not grasp it.  He further concluded that the lack of handrail coverage over the entire bottom tread was a dangerous condition that contributed to her accident. 

Following the conclusion of discovery, the defendants filed for a summary judgment.  The trial court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint.  The judge determined that plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation because there was conflicting information about the cause of her fall. 

Different versions of how the accident happened were in plaintiff’s medical records. The hospital records indicated that plaintiff fell from the fourth step and hurt her ankle, the emergency personnel reported that plaintiff explained that while she was walking down the steps, she tripped and slid down the last four steps.  Last, the triage nurse from the Medical Center commented that she slipped down four stairs.

In the plaintiff’s complaint, she alleged that defendants’ failure to provide adequate lighting and adequate railings caused her to slip and fall down the last 3-4 steps and suffer personal injuries. 

The trial judge found that there was a contradiction between plaintiff’s testimony, the complaint, and her expert as to what caused the accident.  Accordingly, he found that plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation and dismissed her complaint.

The plaintiff appealed this order for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence to present the issue of proximate causation to a jury.  There was also an issue appealed concerning spoliation of evidence because the surveillance video of the accident was not preserved.  However, that issue did not factor into the Appellate Division’s issue on appeal as to whether the summary judgment should have been granted.

The Appellate Division noted that the question of proximate cause “asks whether the actual harm suffered was a reasonable consequence of the defendant’s actual act or omission.”  It would suffice if it is a substantial contributing factor to the harm suffered.  The Appellate Division further noted that proximate cause is “generally a question for the jury.” 

The Court disagreed with the trial court judge’s finding that proximate cause was lacking.  The Appellate Division found that “a reasonable jury could find that additional railing at the end of plaintiff’s fall path could have helped plaintiff prevent or mitigate her injuries.”   Further, the Appellate Division found that “[b]ecause the absence of any railing at the end of the staircase may have contributed to plaintiff’s injuries, the issue of proximate causation should have been left to a jury.”  Hence the Court reversed the trial court judge’s ruling and remanded the matter back for further proceedings. 

Plaintiff’s Negligence Claim Against Casino Security Guard Dismissed Due to Failure to Retain Expert

Plaintiff John Coxe sued Harrah’s, claiming that he suffered injuries as a result of being improperly detained by Harrah’s security team.  He and his girlfriend, Valerie Kloepping, were in the pool area at Harrah’s when his credentials could not be located.  Although they were later located, Plaintiff became belligerent. Eventually, security had to physically restrain and remove him from the pool area.  The issue in Coxe v. Caesars Ent. Corp., 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2061 (App. Div. Aug. 29, 2024) was whether the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence claim against Harrah’s due to his failure to retain an expert to establish the standard of care for Harrah’s security guards. 

Plaintiff was a regular patron of Harrah’s for many years.  On the day of their visit, Coxe and his girlfriend went to the resort pool at around 3:00 p.m.  He gave his credentials, which included his driver’s license, room key and Harrah’s reward card, to the bartender to start a tab.  After being at the bar for six hours and consuming many beers, he attempted to close his tab.  The bartender advised plaintiff that his credentials could not be located.  Plaintiff became irate, in part because about one month earlier an unknown person had accessed his hotel room and stole his money.  He was concerned that he had been robbed again, and demanded to speak with a resort supervisor or police.

A Harrah’s security guard responded to the pool area and found plaintiff yelling at the pool manager for 5-10 minutes.  Plaintiff was described as “belligerent, clearly intoxicated and aggressive.”  Security attempted to de-escalate the situation which failed.  Eventually, Coxe’s credentials were located, and they were returned.  However, Coxe did not calm down and Harrah’s security repeatedly asked him to leave the pool now that his credentials had been returned.   Coxe refused and instead continued to argue with the bar staff. 

Harrah’s security guards had to physically restrain him to remove him from the pool area.  They placed him face down on the ground and handcuffed him.  They dragged him to the exit, which friction caused his swimsuit to slip down.  His swimsuit was adjusted, and he was escorted to Harrah’s holding cells.  He was detained there until Atlantic City police responded, at which time he was released and taken to the hospital. 

Coxe then filed suit against Harrah’s under theories of negligence, assault, false arrest and malicious prosecution.   The defendant filed for a summary judgment, which was granted as to the malicious prosecution claim.  The remaining claims proceeded to trial.  At the close of the evidence, but before the jury began to deliberate, Harrah’s moved for a directed verdict as to plaintiff’s negligence claim.  The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the negligence claim.  On the remaining claims of assault and false imprisonment, the jury returned a verdict for defendant and found no cause of action. 

This appeal ensued.  Plaintiff claimed that the trial court should not have granted defendant’s directed verdict motion as to the negligence claim.  Coxe claimed that one of the security guards testified about putting him in an escort hold and Coxe argued that this testimony was inconsistent with de-escalation or reasonable behavior by security. 

However, the Appellate Division found that the trial court did properly grant defendant’s motion.  The Court noted that plaintiff failed to introduce evidence which established a standard of care for Harrah’s security guards.  Further, the Appellate Division noted that there was “no evidence presented at trial from which a jury could infer how a reasonable security guard would act under the circumstances.”

The Court found that there would be no basis for a jury to find that the act of approaching a disorderly patron to remove that person from the premise was negligent conduct.  Further, the Appellate Division pointed out that the plaintiff’s argument that this security guard was unnecessarily aggressive was undermined by his further testimony that his attempted de-escalation had been futile and that plaintiff was intoxicated, belligerent and aggressive and had repeatedly refused requests to leave.

Finally, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff’s argument that an expert was not necessary to establish the standard of care because the circumstances in this case are within the ken of the average juror.  The Court rejected that argument and noted that the trial court had previously advised the plaintiff that he may wish to retain an expert to establish the standard of care.  Further, the trial court had advised plaintiff that he was not precluded from questioning the defendant about their policies and their conformance therewith, but the trial court judge did advise the plaintiff that he thought he would need an expert to establish the existence of a duty. 

Thus, the trial court did give plaintiff an opportunity to prove negligence without an expert. However, the plaintiff was unable to establish a duty based upon the testimony at trial.  Therefore, the Appellate Division found that the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict was proper and affirmed the trial court decision, dismissing the negligence claim. 

Expert Needed for Condominium Owner to Recover for Water Damage

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.

Capehart Blogs

Duty of Care
Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Lawsuit Against Trampoline Park Dismissed Due to Lack of Expert Testimony As to Duty of Care Owed by Facility
Evidence
Appellate Division Upholds Trial Court’s Use of an Evidentiary Hearing to Dismiss Late Tort Claims Notice on Public Entity
Firm News
Capehart Scatchard Supports Kids’ Chance of New Jersey at Annual Scholarship Gala

Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Lawsuit Against Trampoline Park Dismissed Due to Lack of Expert Testimony As to Duty of Care Owed by Facility

Appellate Division Upholds Trial Court’s Use of an Evidentiary Hearing to Dismiss Late Tort Claims Notice on Public Entity

Employee’s Mid-Shift Pizza Run Was Outside of the Scope of His Employment to Hold Employer Vicariously Liable for His Car Accident

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Categories

Tags
Alternative Energy Alternative Energy - Solar Alternative Energy - Wind Appellate Division automobile accident automobile insurance Burlington County Bar Association Cannabis Law Charity constructive notice coverage discovery dismissal Diversity & Inclusion Committee duty of care employees employers Employment Law evidence insurance Liability Litigation Litigation Quarterly Lorman Millennium Seminars NBI negligence New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act New York Law NJ Law notice Open Public Records Act Pennsylvania Law personal injury Public Entity Newsletter Real Estate and Land Use school law slip and fall statute of limitations summary judgment Taxes Tort Claims Act trip and fall Workers' Compensation Workers' Compensation Newsletter