DEBORAH DIGIOVANNI VS. SAKER SHOP RITES, INC.,ET AL.(L-4465-11, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4307-14T1

Background

Deborah DiGiovanni, a ShopRite cashier, slipped on water near a freestanding ice machine at the store entrance on October 8, 2009; she sued multiple defendants including Wakefern (supplier), Arctic Glacier (servicer), A&J Refrigeration (refrigeration servicer), and Leer (manufacturer). The suit against her employer/owner (Saker ShopRites) was not appealed.
Plaintiff's theory: the ice machine leaked due to improper maintenance/servicing, causing the puddle that led to her fall.
Plaintiff offered an expert, George Meinschein; the trial court excluded his January 2013 report as a net opinion for failing to identify reliable factual bases and methodology linking maintenance failures to leakage.
Meinschein later submitted a May 2014 supplement relying on a servicer's (Proteau) testimony about a clogged condenser and failed fan motor, but he did not explain how leakage would occur from the machine’s self-sealed case; the trial court denied reconsideration and refused to vacate the exclusion.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Wakefern, Arctic Glacier, and A&J because, without admissible expert proof, plaintiff could not establish duty/breach/causation for a complex instrumentality; the Appellate Division affirmed. Plaintiff’s challenge to confirmation of an arbitration award for Leer was also rejected.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Meinschein's expert opinion	Meinschein reliably linked prior leaks and service failures to the Oct. 8, 2009 leak; supplemental report cured defects	Report was a net opinion: conclusions unsupported by factual bases or methodology; supplement still failed to show causal mechanism	Expert report excluded as net opinion; exclusion affirmed
Requirement of expert proof to show negligence re: ice machine maintenance	Expert not necessary; jurors can infer negligence (mode-of-operation analogies)	Ice machine is a complex instrumentality; causation and standard of care require expert testimony	Expert testimony required; absence of admissible expert proof justified summary judgment for defendants
Wakefern’s duty/liability (non-delegable duty / possessor of land / mode-of-operation)	Wakefern owed non-delegable duty or operated activity on premises and thus can be liable without expert proof	Wakefern did not own or control the premises, did not invite customers, and was not a possessor in control; no special duty shown	Wakefern not subject to non-delegable duty or mode-of-operation liability here; summary judgment affirmed
Effect on arbitration judgment confirming no-cause award for Leer	If summary judgment as to other defendants reversed, arbitration confirmation against Leer should be reversed	Plaintiff did not seek trial de novo or oppose confirmation; confirmation judgment is final and appeal-barred	Confirmation stands; appellate reversal of other judgments would not revive claims against Leer

Key Cases Cited

Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36 (discusses net-opinion rule and appellate review of expert admissibility)
Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344 (net-opinion rule: expert conclusions must be supported by factual data)
Buckelew v. Grossbard, 87 N.J. 512 (causal-connection requirement between act and injury)
Jerista v. Murray, 185 N.J. 175 (when expert testimony is required versus when juror common knowledge suffices)
Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395 (plaintiff must establish negligence elements by competent proof; expert often required for workplace-accident cases)
Fernandes v. DAR Dev. Corp., 222 N.J. 390 (expert testimony typically required to establish standard of care and deviation for complex tasks)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (summary judgment standard—view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Lauder v. Teaneck Volunteer Ambulance Corps, 368 N.J. Super. 320 (complexity of instrumentality may necessitate expert testimony)