ELIZABETH C. DECARLO VS. AQUA BEACH RESORT, LLCÂ (L-0428-14, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-4331-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 1, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (74) fell in a hotel bathtub when a metal grab bar detached as she tried to stand; she did not report the incident until the next morning.
- Plaintiff had used the tub/shower in the same room during the prior three days but said she had not touched the bar before the fall and did not observe any defect beforehand.
- Approximately one year later plaintiff returned to the same room; a friend pushed the bar and it again detached, and plaintiff took photos and a video in September 2014.
- Hotel testified to routine inspections: seasonal punch lists, housekeeping inspections, maintenance teams, and repair logs showed no prior complaints or repair requests for that room’s tub or bar.
- Hotel maintained the bar was a prefabricated/decorative component, not an ADA grab bar; no record or testimony established prior repairs to the bar.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendant (hotel) for lack of actual or constructive notice and denied reconsideration; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issue of fact exists on hotel negligence for detached grab bar | DeCarlo argues detached bar + later photos/video create an inference of negligence and notice without need for an expert | Hotel argues no actual or constructive notice, no prior reports, regular inspections, and photos taken a year later are not probative of conditions at time of fall | Court affirmed summary judgment: photos/video insufficient to show actual or constructive notice; no breach shown |
| Admissibility / weight of 2014 photos & video at summary judgment | Photo/video show the bar remained detached and can be viewed as evidence of preexisting defect or prior failed repair | Hotel moved to bar them; argued temporal gap and prejudice under N.J.R.E. 403 make them inadmissible or nonprobative | Court found the 2014 evidence insufficient to create a reasonable inference of notice or defective repair; excluded as not raising a triable issue |
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove defect/repair history | DeCarlo argued an expert was unnecessary; lay observation and photos suffice to show prior repair and dangerous condition | Hotel argued plaintiff’s speculation about a prior repair lacked factual support and would require expert proof to connect photos to condition at time of fall | Court agreed plaintiff’s lay speculation without corroboration or expert support was insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Standard for constructive notice on summary judgment | Plaintiff contended circumstantial evidence (detached bar, later evidence) created triable issue of constructive notice | Hotel relied on no incident reports, routine inspections, and absence of repair records to negate constructive notice | Court applied summary judgment standard de novo and held no reasonable factfinder could infer constructive notice from the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 224 N.J. 189 (2016) (summary judgment reviewed de novo under the same standard as trial court)
- Davis v. Brickman Landscaping Ltd., 219 N.J. 395 (2014) (standard for viewing evidential materials in favor of nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary judgment appellate review and standards)
- Stelluti v. Casapenn Enters., LLC, 203 N.J. 286 (2010) (business owners’ duty to invitees to inspect and maintain safe premises)
- Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens, Inc., 175 N.J. 559 (2003) (plaintiff must prove actual or constructive knowledge of dangerous condition)
- Francisco v. Miller, 141 N.J. Super. 290 (App. Div. 1951) (evidence must permit reasonable inference of notice to create jury question)