PATRICIA K. RIEGER VS. ANN, INC., ETC.(L-0557-14, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-4172-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Patricia K. Reiger slipped in defendant Loft’s dressing area, caused by a platform behind a mirror that toppled a mannequin onto her, injuring her shoulder/elbow.
- Platform was roughly five inches high, rectangular, large enough to hold two mannequins, with a store set and three-way mirror nearby.
- No eyewitnesses; Posusney Engineering concluded the incident occurred from plaintiff’s failure to keep a lookout, and found the aisle did not meet certain code requirements.
- Plaintiff retained an engineering expert but did not produce a report in discovery; defendant’s expert opined the accessway exceeded code requirements.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Loft, finding plaintiff failed to show a breach of a standard of care without expert testimony.
- Appellate Division affirmed, holding that expert testimony was required to establish a standard of care and a dangerous condition, and that the platform placement did not violate building code.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was expert testimony required to prove a breach of duty? | Reiger argues lay jurors can determine breach without experts. | Loft contends expert testimony is needed for standard of care. | Yes; expert testimony required. |
| Did the platform placement create a dangerous condition as a matter of law? | Platform created a hazard irrespective of code. | No dangerous condition shown without expert input. | No; requires expert support to establish standard of care. |
| Should summary judgment be affirmed on the duty element? | Common sense shows a duty to maintain safe premises. | No breach proven without expert testimony. | Affirmed; no genuine issue as to duty without expert proof. |
| Is compliance with building code controlling here? | Code compliance not necessary to establish dangerous condition. | Code compliance not violated; no liability without breach. | Code compliance not proven to create liability; expert needed for breach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395 (N.J. 2014) (negligence proof may rely on non-technical evidence; jury can determine standard of care)
- Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36 (N.J. 2015) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
- Polzo v. Cnty of Essex, 196 N.J. 569 (N.J. 2008) (elements of negligence established; expert may be required)
- Long v. Landy, 35 N.J. 44 (N.J. 1961) (negligence not presumed from accident)
- Sanzari v. Rosenfeld, 34 N.J. 128 (N.J. 1961) (jury can determine precautions; non-technical cases)
- Giantonnio v. Taccard, 291 N.J. Super. 31 (App. Div. 1996) (layperson may testify to standard of care in non-technical cases)
- Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426 (N.J. 1993) (expert not required for certain dangers; camouflaged steps)
- Campbell v. Hastings, 348 N.J. Super. 264 (App. Div. 2002) (expert not required to establish danger of unlit foyer)
- Berger v. Shapiro, 30 N.J. 89 (N.J. 1959) (expert not required to explain dangerous condition)
- Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens, Inc., 175 N.J. 559 (N.J. 2003) (premises liability duties; inspection and maintenance)
- Stelluti v. Casapenn Enters., LLC, 203 N.J. 286 (N.J. 2010) (duty to maintain premises; inspect for hazards)