Deborah Townsend v. Noah Pierre (072357)
110 A.3d 52
N.J.2015Background
- On August 9, 2008, a fatal collision occurred when Noah Pierre turned left from Garfield Drive onto Levitt Parkway and struck a motorcycle; the motorcyclist died.
- Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, alleging overgrown shrubbery on property at the intersection (owned by Garland, leased to Sunset Family Dental) obstructed Pierre’s view and proximately caused the collision; Township and County design claims were also pleaded.
- Pierre testified she edged forward four times and when she made the final stop and turned, her view of oncoming traffic was unobstructed; a passenger corroborated that testimony.
- Plaintiffs produced an engineer expert (Nicholas Bellizzi, P.E.) who concluded the intersection sight distance was substandard and that shrubbery was a significant contributing cause; Bellizzi acknowledged Pierre’s testimony but opined she was mistaken.
- Trial court struck Bellizzi’s causation opinion as an inadmissible “net opinion” and granted summary judgment for Garland and Sunset Family Dental; Appellate Division reversed as to those defendants, proposing use of a hypothetical question to elicit the expert’s opinion. The New Jersey Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s exclusion and summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert causation opinion (net opinion rule) | Bellizzi relied on site inspection, photos, standards and could contradict Pierre; jury can weigh credibility | Bellizzi’s causation conclusion lacked factual or methodological support and contradicted uncontroverted witness testimony | Expert’s causation opinion was a net opinion and properly excluded under N.J.R.E. 702/703; admissible only on duty, not causation |
| Use of hypothetical to elicit expert contrary to witness testimony | Hypothetical could present alternative factual possibilities and rehabilitate expert opinion | Hypothetical would require assuming away uncontroverted testimony and lacks evidentiary foundation | Hypothetical cannot cure a net opinion that contradicts uncontroverted evidence; inadmissible under N.J.R.E. 705 |
| Standard for summary judgment on proximate cause | Disputed credibility and expert report create triable issue | Uncontradicted testimony establishes lack of causal link; without admissible expert proof causation fails | Summary judgment appropriate where no reasonable factfinder could find proximate cause; judgment for property owner and lessee reinstated |
| Duty vs. causation distinction for expert testimony | Expert testimony establishes duty and breach and supports causation inference | Duty opinion is supported by ordinances/standards but causation requires factual support | Expert’s duty opinions admissible; causation opinion inadmissible when speculative and contradicted by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344 (2011) (deferential appellate review of trial court evidentiary rulings on expert testimony)
- Borough of Saddle River v. 66 E. Allendale, LLC, 216 N.J. 115 (2013) (net opinion rule requires experts to give the why and wherefore supporting opinions)
- Polzo v. Cnty. of Essex, 196 N.J. 569 (2008) (expert report insufficient where conclusions lack factual analytic support)
- Landrigan v. Celotex Corp., 127 N.J. 404 (1992) (experts must identify factual bases and reliable methodology)
- Fluehr v. City of Cape May, 159 N.J. 532 (1999) (proximate cause may be removed from jury in extraordinary cases)
- Stanley Co. of Am. v. Hercules Powder Co., 16 N.J. 295 (1954) (expert opinions must rest on facts admitted or supported by evidence)