NADINE AMBRICO VS. THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION Â (L-1484-14, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2202-15T3

On Sept. 13, 2012 Nadine Ambrico was injured when an elevator door at her workplace closed on her hand/arm.
Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp. had a maintenance/service contract with Camden County and had been inspecting the building's elevators monthly since at least Jan. 2011.
The subject elevator was last inspected by Thyssenkrupp on Aug. 1, 2012 (six weeks before the accident).
Ambrico did not serve an expert report and relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to avoid expert proof.
The trial court granted Thyssenkrupp summary judgment, finding Ambrico failed to prove the elevator was under Thyssenkrupp’s exclusive control at the time of the accident.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res ipsa loquitur applies	Ambrico: res ipsa shifts burden because the event ordinarily bespeaks negligence and she was not at fault	Thyssenkrupp: expert proof needed; elevator operation is beyond juror knowledge and it lacked exclusive control at time of accident	Court: res ipsa inapplicable because Thyssenkrupp did not have exclusive control when accident occurred; summary judgment for defendant affirmed

Bornstein v. Metropolitan Bottling Co., 26 N.J. 263 (establishes three-part res ipsa loquitur test)
Buckelew v. Grossbard, 87 N.J. 512 (res ipsa grounded in probability and placing production burden on party with superior knowledge)
Szalontai v. Yazbo's Sports Cafe, 183 N.J. 386 (plaintiff must prove all res ipsa elements by preponderance)
Jerista v. Murray, 185 N.J. 175 (focus on exclusive control element of res ipsa)
Allendorf v. Kaiserman Enterprises, 266 N.J. Super. 662 (res ipsa applied where maintenance company serviced elevator hours before injury)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (summary judgment standard)
Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 224 N.J. 189 (de novo review of summary judgment)