Wayne Davis v. Brickman Landscaping (071310)
219 N.J. 395
| N.J. | 2014Background
- Fire at Staybridge Suites (May 13, 2005) spread from a storage closet beneath an exterior combustible stair; two children died and plaintiff Irene Davis was seriously injured.
- Private contractors (FireMaster, Atlantic, later Cintas) performed periodic sprinkler inspections and did not report any need for a sprinkler in the closet.
- Plaintiffs sued the inspectors for negligence, alleging they should have informed the hotel owner that an additional sprinkler was required and that such notice would have prevented the fatalities.
- Defendants’ expert testified NFPA 25 (adopted into New Jersey’s Uniform Fire Code by reference) defined the inspectors’ duties and that defendants complied with it; plaintiffs’ expert conceded NFPA 25 did not require reporting design defects but opined a higher reasonable-care duty did.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants (no duty beyond NFPA 25); Appellate Division reversed (compliance with code not dispositive); Supreme Court granted certification and reviewed whether expert proof of the standard of care was required and whether plaintiffs’ expert offered admissible support.
- Supreme Court held plaintiffs needed expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, and plaintiffs’ expert offered an inadmissible net opinion lacking objective support; summary judgment for defendants reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs must prove the applicable standard of care with expert testimony for sprinkler-inspection negligence | Mawhinney: NFPA 25 is minimum; reasonable care requires inspectors to report design flaws, so jury should decide | Defendants: Inspection duties are defined by NFPA 25 (adopted into UFC); plaintiffs must show a higher standard with admissible expert proof | Expert proof required because sprinkler inspection is esoteric; plaintiffs needed expert to define standard |
| Whether compliance with NFPA 25 precludes negligence as a matter of law | Plaintiffs: NFPA 25 is a minimum; compliance doesn’t bar negligence if reasonable care required more | Defendants: NFPA 25 (as part of UFC) is the governing standard and defendants complied | Compliance is evidence of due care but not dispositive; UFC/State code governs absent admissible contrary expert proof |
| Whether plaintiffs’ expert opinion constituted an admissible basis for a higher standard | Plaintiffs: Mawhinney cited NFPA materials and experience to support a duty to report design defects | Defendants: Mawhinney’s view is a net opinion without objective authority; inadmissible | Mawhinney’s opinion was an inadmissible net opinion — unsupported personal view; thus insufficient |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate after excluding/discounting plaintiffs’ expert theory | Plaintiffs: Factual disputes about reasonable care should go to jury | Defendants: Without admissible expert showing a higher standard and breach, plaintiffs cannot meet negligence elements | Summary judgment affirmed for defendants because plaintiffs failed to establish applicable standard and breach with admissible expert evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344 (expert must give the "why and wherefore"; net-opinion rule)
- Polzo v. County of Essex, 196 N.J. 569 (expert opinion foundations and limits)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (summary judgment standard)
- Sanzari v. Rosenfeld, 34 N.J. 128 (when jury can supply standard of care without expert)
- Butler v. Acme Mkts., Inc., 89 N.J. 270 (expert testimony required when matter is esoteric)
- Giantonnio v. Taccard, 291 N.J. Super. 31 (inspection matters beyond lay juror knowledge may require expert)
- Wellenheider v. Rader, 49 N.J. 1 (industry customs are evidential, not conclusive)
- Black v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 56 N.J. 63 (safety codes are minimum standards; not dispositive)
- Kaplan v. Skoloff & Wolfe, P.C., 339 N.J. Super. 97 (expert opinion unsupported by authority is personal view/net opinion)
- Buckelew v. Grossbard, 87 N.J. 512 (plaintiff’s burden to prove negligence elements by competent proof)