58 A.3d 1221
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2013Background
- Mayer, a professional caterer, was injured when a glass vase containing a floral arrangement shattered during setup at a synagogue.
- The Grunwalds, a florist and employer of Once Upon a Rose, Inc., were responsible for transporting and arranging the flowers at the event.
- Plaintiff claimed the vase was gripped improperly or inadequately inspected for cracks prior to use.
- The vase had been used previously (10–30 times) and checked for chips/cracks that day with no defects found by Mrs. Grunwald.
- The vase exploded while plaintiff approached to assist Mr. Grunwald, causing severe hand injuries and permanent impairment.
- The trial court granted a directed verdict against Mayer, prompting reversal on appeal and remand for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert liability testimony was required for res ipsa loquitur | Mayer argues res ipsa applies without liability expert. | Grunwald contends expert needed to prove causation. | No expert needed; res ipsa inferred from common knowledge. |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur could apply despite other possible causes | Res ipsa supports negligence inference given exclusive control. | Possibility of product defect or other explanations defeats inference. | Res ipsa could apply; other explanations did not destroy inference. |
| Whether the trial court’s directed verdict was proper given res ipsa | Jury should decide based on res ipsa inference. | Evidence insufficient to sustain negligence without expert. | Directed verdict reversed; case remanded for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Szalontai v. Yazbo’s Sports Café, 183 N.J. 386 (N.J. 2005) (res ipsa factors; infers negligence when conditions met)
- Brown v. Racquet Club of Bricktown, 95 N.J. 280 (N.J. 1984) (basics of res ipsa loquitur standard)
- Jerista v. Murray, 185 N.J. 175 (N.J. 2005) (no automatic requirement for expert testimony in res ipsa)
- Rosenberg v. Otis Elevator Co., App.Div.2004 (N.J. App. Div. 2004) (no expert needed where common knowledge suffices)
- Buckelew v. Grossbard, 87 N.J. 512 (N.J. 1981) (expert needed where standard of care is specialized)
- Bornstein v. Metro. Bottling Co., 26 N.J. 263 (N.J. 1958) (illustrates res ipsa in glass container explosions)