Certainly when Patricia Gike rented her long-time handyman a room for two nights in Freehold, New Jersey she did not expect to bear liability for his negligent actions, which then led to a fire. Joseph Michael Wood was Ms. Gike's handyman; one afternoon he had a seizure on Ms. Gike's property. She rushed him to the hospital and when he was told that he needed to stay locally for a few days to have a follow-up medical appointment, Ms. Gike altruistically offered to rent him a hotel room.

Ms. Gike merely paid for the room, she never entered it nor did she obtain the key. However, under state regulations that govern hotels and multiple dwellings, Gike is considered an occupant of the room and, therefore, could be held liable for the actions of her guests. Mr. Woods brought a gas can to the hotel room so he could huff the gasoline. He was also smoking a cigarette in the room. He proceeded to accidently knock the gas can over, and his lit cigarette started a massive fire that caused significant damage. The hotel brought a civil suit against Ms. Gike for the damage.

A Monmouth County Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of the hotel, and found that Ms. Gike was automatically liable for the actions of Mr. Woods. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Ms. Gike was an occupant of the room under state regulations, but said that she may not necessarily be held automatically liable for the civil damages caused by Wood's negligence. This case is remanded back to Monmouth County Superior Court to rule on the issue of whether or not Ms. Gike will be found liable for Mr. Woods' negligence.

This is a reminder to everyone that rents a hotel or motel room to be mindful of the way you and your guests treat the space. By signing your name to the bill you not only assume the cost of the room but also the liability if anyone should destroy it. If anything like this has happen to you, you should contact a civil trial lawyer immediately.

In the State of New Jersey, the owner of an automobile may be responsible for another's accident under two separate theories of liability. The first is called "respondeat superior". This is where the driver of a vehicle is carrying out business for the vehicle's owner and is involved in an accident. This would be the case where an employee is driving an employer's car for business purposes. Despite the fact that the employee was operating the vehicle, the employer would also be responsible for any damages.

The second theory is called "negligent entrustment". Basically, this theory is based upon the owner's own negligence for allowing another individual to operate their vehicle when the owner has reason to know that the other individual is irresponsible or has a greater propensity to operate the vehicle improperly given the owner's knowledge of prior conduct. For instance, if you allow an individual with a suspended license for 14 speeding violations to operate your car and they are involved in a high speed collision, it is likely that you will have some responsibility for the happening of that accident.

An Appellate Court of New Jersey recently discussed these theories of liability and a potential cause of action in the case of Jafar v. Elrac Inc. There, two teenagers were struck and killed by the driver of a vehicle who claimed that his company transferred him to an outside sales job despite the fact that the company had full and complete knowledge of his drinking problem. Thus, the theory was asserted that the employer should not have given this individual an outside sales job because it was foreseeable that he would be operating a motor vehicle and, with his drinking problem, may be operating that motor vehicle in an intoxicated state. Therefore, it was alleged, that the company was negligent in its own right for making this outside sales transfer.

The Court dismissed the claim against the employer not on the legal theory but, instead, on the facts of the case. There was no indication in the facts of the case that the employer knew that its employee was drunk on the night in question or that it had the ability to control his actions that evening. Based on those facts, the Court could not find liability.

It is important to note that the argument in favor of liability in this matter was a valiant attempt at stretching the present state of the law. In this regard, under different facts, it is likely that a court could find liability against an employer if that employer knowingly places an employee into a situation where it is foreseeable that the employee may cause injury to others. Obviously, in order to expand upon current law, you will require services of a trained and qualified attorney who can properly evaluate the facts of your case.

In the heavily divided Supreme Court decision of Voss v. Tranquilino, the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that intoxicated drivers injured in a motor vehicle accident may have a viable case against the bar which has negligently served them alcohol. The state of the law in this regard has been unclear as a result of an insurance law statute, which purports to prevent law suits being brought by intoxicated drivers when they are injured in motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, it was the widespread belief that an injured intoxicated driver would not be allowed to bring suit against a bar or liquor licensed establishment that may have negligently served him/her alcohol, and, which negligent service was the proximate cause of a motor vehicle accident and their injuries. In the Supreme Court's recent decision, they held that the insurance statute related to banning causes of action for intoxicated drivers only applies to suits that could be brought against the operators of other motor vehicles. In this regard, the court held that New Jersey's Dram Shop Statute does not prevent such suits from being filed. We do not believe that such liability would ever be imposed upon a social host setting, in that the social host liability statute is completely separate and apart from the Dram Shop liability statute. (See prior blog).

We believe that the Supreme Court's opinion is contrary to public policy, although it may be in conformance with the black letter of the statute. In this regard, we are also of the opinion that New Jerseys Legislature will ultimately address this "loophole" and prevent potential law suits by intoxicated persons against licensed establishments that may have negligently served that person alcohol. At the present time, however, such suits remain viable and will have to be dealt with by the courts of our State. These complexities and variations with each holding from the Court are why an expert attorney is needed, to sort through the detailed circumstances and series of events in your particular situation and how they may fit into the existing case law, such that your rights are protected to the fullest.

As the summer begins, many people host parties at their homes where they serve alcohol to their guests. One question that is frequently asked of attorneys is whether or not the person hosting the party can be responsible for injuries resulting from the service of alcohol at the parties. The short answer is yes.

New Jersey law is split with regard to social host liability as it relates to the service of alcohol to people under the age of 21 and over the age of 21. Liability for the service of alcohol in a social setting (not a bar or restaurant) to individuals over 21 is governed by statute (N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.6, et seq.). Basically, the statute provides that if you provide alcohol to a social guest over 21 years of age while that person is "visibly intoxicated" you can potentially be responsible for injuries or damage that are caused by the "visibly intoxicated" person. Thus, when serving alcohol at your home or at a party you must be aware of the signs of intoxication in your guests and, if such signs exist, immediately stop serving them alcohol.

The Statute mentioned above limits liability to situations where only third parties are injured as a result of motor vehicle accidents. For instance, if you negligently serve alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person at your home, you will not be responsible for injuries sustained because that intoxicated person injured someone in a fight. The Statute only applies to motor vehicle accidents. Further, you will not be responsible for injuries to the intoxicated person themselves. The Statute is for the benefit of "innocent" third parties.

The law drastically differs with regard to the negligent service of alcohol in a social setting to individuals under the age of 21. There is no statute that governs this situation. Instead, liability is based on common law principles of negligence. In this regard, the same rules concerning service to "visibly intoxicated" individuals presently applies. However, if alcohol is provided to a "visibly intoxicated" individual under the age of 21, liability extends to all situations where an innocent third party is injured (not just motor vehicle accidents), and includes liability for injuries sustained by the intoxicated minor.

After reviewing recent case law in this jurisdiction and other jurisdictions, it is our impression that the courts of this state will ultimately extend social host liability to individuals who serve alcohol to minors even before that minor is "visibly intoxicated". This means, in our opinion, that liability will attach to any and all individuals serving alcohol to minors whether or not the minor is showing signs of intoxication at the time of service.

It should be noted that the "service" of alcohol as described in this blog does not necessarily mean that you actually have to give the drink to the "visibly intoxicated" person. All that is necessary is that alcohol be "provided" at your house, home or party in order to for liability to attach. Accordingly, in situations where there is a keg party or self-service bar set up in your home, you will have been deemed to "provide" the alcohol.

Finally, one last note of caution concerning the service of alcohol to individuals under 21. It is presently a disorderly person offense in the State of New Jersey to serve or provide alcohol to any individual under the age of 21. Further, depending on the circumstances, it may also be deemed a criminal offense of endangering the welfare of a minor.

The bottom line is that service of provision of alcohol to minors should be avoided at all costs, and service of alcohol to adults must be monitored very carefully to avoid liability. If you find yourself involved in any way to an accident stemming from alcohol being served at a residence, on either side of this controversial and sensitive topic, it is important that you contact an attorney immediately, to sort through the circumstances surrounding that accident in detail in order to protect your legal rights.

A recent flurry of commuter or tour bus accidents raises various issues with regard to passenger rights and obligations after the accident occurs. Specifically, there are issues concerning notice requirements and medical bills that a layperson may not be aware of after being involved in such an accident, but that an attorney would.

As you may know from our website or prior blogs, any time an individual is injured in a motor vehicle accident, that persons' automobile insurance coverage will be responsible to pay for that person's medical bills as long as they are reasonable and related to the motor vehicle accident. However, most, if not, all motor vehicle insurance policies will have a specific exclusion of medical bills incurred as a result of injury while you are being transported in a bus or other livery conveyance. Accordingly, if you are injured in a bus accident, it may be most prudent to attempt to have your medical bills paid by your automobile insurance carrier and, when declined, utilize your primary health insurance coverage. If you do not have health insurance, it is important to seek legal advice so that an attorney may determine whether or not the insurance coverage on the bus has policy provisions, which would pay for medical bills in the event of personal injury sustained in an accident.

In any event, should you have any questions concerning the payment of medical bills after being injured as a passenger on a bus, you should contact an attorney that has experience in personal injury and insurance coverage.

In addition to issues concerning medical bills, there may also be issues concerning notice requirements. For instance, if you are traveling on a New Jersey Transit Bus, New Jersey Transit is considered a subdivision of the State of New Jersey, and, as such, you would be entitled to place New Jersey Transit on notice within 90 days of your accident if you have sustained injuries and intend to sue.

Again, it is imperative that you contact an attorney immediately should you be involved in any accident of this sort and you suffer any sort of injury. Legal recourse presents various issues that require analysis in order to determine whether or not you are able to recover compensatory damages or coverage for medical care. Call an attorney who has the experience and the knowledge to help you get through the process.

The recent filing of a lawsuit against Mr. August Busch, the Anheuser-Busch heir, by his recently deceased model-girlfriend's family, her eight year old son and his father, raises questions as to what duty one may have under the law. According to news reports, Busch allegedly found her sleeping in bed the following morning and could not wake her up, and she was later found to have oxycodone and cocaine in her system. The girlfriend's family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Busch for carelessness and negligence, seeking damages for his failure to properly render care and/or aid to her, and further, for negligently causing her death.

"Duty" is a legal obligation under the law, which is imputed to certain people depending upon the circumstances. For instance, all drivers or users of the road way have a duty to use reasonable care and caution when operating a motor vehicle. Similarly, all of us have a duty under the law to be "reasonably prudent people" as we perform our daily tasks. However, case law in New Jersey, and a majority of the states, indicate that people in general do not have a "duty to rescue" if we see someone in danger or in trouble. Putting aside moral obligations, the law does not require you to put yourself in danger in order to render aid to another despite the fact that you may easily do so but fail to. Certain exceptions to this principle exist, especially where you cause the danger in which that the other individual finds himself.

The Busch case raises the question as to whether or not he had a duty to check on his girlfriend and render aid to her, or help her, if he knew she either had taken an excessive amount of drugs or even had the propensity to do so. Although he may not independently have had a duty to render aid to her under the law, this analysis may change in his circumstance due to the fact that he had a relationship with her, she was in his house at the time of the alleged overdose and there may be facts which show that he either provided the drugs or was specifically aware that she was taking them. There is New Jersey case law to suggest that when an individual is in danger within your home, that you may have a legal obligation to render care to that person even if such rendering of that care only involves calling 911, emergency services.

In any event, any such cases are extremely fact sensitive and must be analyzed by an experienced attorney who has vast experience in the area of personal injury law.

The Appellate Division recently decided the case of McDougall v. Lamb, wherein
it held that an owner of a dog is not entitled to emotional distress damages where the owner actually witnessed the dog's death. It has been long held in New Jersey that a litigant is not entitled to emotional distress damages when their companion, a pet, is somehow killed as a result of someone else's negligence. The theory has long been that pets are merely "property" and as such, one is not entitled to emotional distress damages as the result of loss of same. In this regard, damages are strictly limited to the cost of replacement of that pet from a monetary standpoint.

The plaintiff in this case asserted a claim that she suffered emotional distress due to the fact that she actually witnessed her pet's death, as a result of by being viciously attacked by another dog. Her theory was that the other dog's owner's negligence caused her dog's death and, due to the fact that she witnessed same, she also suffered emotional distress. In this regard, New Jersey law holds that a litigant may be entitled to emotional distress damages when they actually witness the death of a close family member (Portee v. Jaffee). The plaintiff and her attorney here were looking to extend that doctrine to pets.

Unfortunately, the Appellate Division did not recognize the plaintiff's arguments and held that such emotional distress damages from witnessing a pet's death due to another's negligence is not compensible under New Jersey law.

In any event, it should be noted that there are various causes of action that the plaintiff in this case could have possibly asserted in which she would have been able to receive additionally monetary compensation. For instance, if she believed that she was somehow in danger as a result of the other dog's attack, she may have been entitled to emotional distress damage in that regard. Accordingly, a highly skilled, experienced personal injury attorney's guidance is required for to ensure that you receive all that you are entitled to under the law, should you find yourself in a situation similar to that described here.

The NJ Appellate Division recently held, in the case of Callo v. Allstate, that the plaintiff would not be able to collect on a $250,000.00 jury verdict against a co-student attacker from the attacker's parents' homeowners' insurance policy.

Generally, pursuant to New Jersey law, a homeowners' policy will not cover injuries sustained when its insured intends on causing the injury. Homeowners' policies are designed to cover injuries sustained when the insured homeowner engages in a negligent act, which results in another's injury. However, there is case law in New Jersey to suggest that coverage under a homeowner's policy of insurance will cover the unintended consequences of intentional acts. This means that if an insured intended on engaging in an act but did not intend the outcome of that act (i.e. personal injury) there may be coverage.

In this case, the defendant attacked the plaintiff while in school. After a trial, a jury entered a $250,000.00 verdict in favor of the girl who was attacked. The defendant's insurance company, Allstate Insurance, provided a defense to the attacker but refused to pay the jury's verdict. Instead, it filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration from the court that it owed no duty to pay the jury's verdict. The Appellate Division agreed with Allstate, and held that the attacker intended to cause significant injury to the plaintiff, and, as such, the verdict was not covered under the policy of insurance.

In a case such as this, discovery must be conducted of the parties in an effort to establish that the attacker did not cause the specific type of injury that was sustained by the victim. In this regard, argument can be made to the courts that the victim's injury was merely an unintended consequence of an intentional act. Accordingly, it is important to see an attorney who specializes in a personal injury law practice in the event you are injured by a purported intentional act or assault.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently decided in the case of Marcinczyk v. State of New Jersey Police Training Commission that an agreement to waive any liability against a public entity is unenforceable as a matter of public policy. In Marcinczyk, the plaintiff was a police trainee and was mandated to attend a police academy for training. In applying for the police academy, Mr. Marcinczyk was required to sign a waiver which purportedly prevented him from suing the Police Academy for pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of wages, injuries, permanent disabilities or pecuniary losses as a result of injuries or losses he may sustain during the course of his training or participation in the police academy. Of course, Mr. Marcinczyk was injured during the course of his training and commenced suit.

Although the Supreme Court of New Jersey recently upheld similar type clauses for private institutions such as health clubs and gyms, the Court refused to uphold such a waiver of liability when the beneficiary of such clause is a public entity. Specifically, the Supreme Court of New Jersey referenced New Jersey's Tort Claims Act, which is a statute enacted to permit injured citizens to seek compensation from public entities for negligence in "narrowly defined circumstances." The Supreme Court further reasoned that because a statute specifically allows for recovery of monetary damages under certain circumstances when there is negligence by a public entity or public entity's employees, it would be contrary to public policy to allow a contractual provision to bargain away the right to sue. The court further noted that the Tort Claims Act provides specific immunities to the public entity and as such, in throwing out the contractual provision, the court did not impose liability upon the public entity. The court merely remanded the case back to the trial court for purposes of determining if any of the specific statutory immunities applied.

As set forth on our website and in prior blogs, the Tort Claims Act provides specific immunities to public entities where injuries occur as a result of that public entity's negligence. In our view, the court's decision here was a correct one, in that New Jersey's legislature has already dealt with liability of public entities through the enactment of the Tort Claims Act. If you have any question as to whether or not you are legally entitled to sue a public or private entity for negligence, consult a skilled attorney immediately in order to protect your rights.

A man who was left in the Pacific Ocean while scuba diving recently was awarded $1.68 million by a Los Angeles County jury. The California man filed a lawsuit against the scuba diving charter company that negligently left him in the ocean approximately 12 miles offshore. The claim revealed that the charter boat left him at the first dive site and then proceeded to a second dive site approximately 7 miles from his location in the water. Fortunately, a passing boat later picked him. This situation, unlike the situation in Open Water, turned out to be a happy ending in that he was ultimately rescued. The man's ordeal lost at sea lasted approximately 3 hours.

In that New Jersey is a shore state bordering the Atlantic Ocean, it would not be far fetched that such an incident could occur in the waters off New Jersey. Clearly, any charter boat or dive company has a duty and obligation to ensure all of the divers it brings out are fully accounted for before returning to shore or moving onward. In this regard, it is incumbent upon such companies to have an accounting system in place as a way to account for those that have gone overboard and under the surface. In our opinion, the failure of a charter company to have such an accounting system would not only constitute negligence but gross negligence which would most likely warrant punitive damages.

If you or members of your family are injured or mistreated by a charter company, diving, boating or otherwise, or left at sea or in the wilderness, it is important to contact an attorney to determine the extent of your rights.

Parents of a Tennessee minor recently filed a lawsuit against a local Steak and Shake, which claims that the hot sauce on their son's chili was "too hot." According to the lawsuit filed, the minor apparently ordered a bowl of chili which included "Blair's Mega Death Sauce" and that the restaurant failed to warn of the sauce's intensity. The minor was taken to a local hospital with an inflamed digestive tract and a severe allergic reaction. Parents are seeking unspecified damages.

Although the filing of this litigation appears to be outrageous, it raises issues relating to implied warranties under the law. In New Jersey, there is an implied warranty of merchantability with regard to food products sold by a retail establishment either to be consumed within a restaurant or for later consumption. Basically, this implied warranty of merchantability means that the food product that is being sold must be fit for its intended use; i.e. to be consumed. If, for example, a restaurant serves food which ultimately makes the consumer of that food ill, the restaurant may be responsible for personal injury damages to that consumer on the theory related to the breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Additionally, the restaurant may also be responsible to that consumer on theories of negligence and breach of contract.

Turning to the minor boy in Tennessee, it would appear that the bowl of chili with "Blair's Mega Death Sauce" was merchantable in that it was "fit" for its intended purpose; that it to be consumed by the average consumer as an ultra-spicy chili. Unfortunately, it would appear that this minor boy had some type of allergic reaction to the extra hot sauce, which caused his hospitalization. The ultimate issue in that case will most likely be whether or not the restaurant properly warned the boy and his parents of the full extent of the chili's spicy nature. In our view, the words "Mega Death Sauce" would reasonable put the end user on notice that the sauce was extremely hot. Really, the issue here is whether the minor boy's parents should have liability for allowing their child to consume this "Mega Death Sauce" without testing same or limiting its consumption. We leave the liability of one's parents under such circumstances in the state of New Jersey for a different day.

However, in the event you or one of your family is ever injured by a food or food product, it is extremely important to preserve any of the remaining food for ultimate testing if possible and seek legal advice in order to determine your rights.

Two recent cases in the news bring to light issues of invasion of privacy due to improper uses of webcams. In one case, a Rutgers University student committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge after his roommate broadcasted his romantic interlude with a member of the same sex. In another case, a Philadelphia school district agreed to pay over $600,000.00 to two students, because of photographs secretly taken on school issued laptops. In this instance, the district admitted that it had obtained thousands of webcam photographs from student laptops in an apparent attempt to "locate missing computers."

In New Jersey, a civil cause of action exists where one's privacy is invaded and results in harm to the other's interest in privacy, mental anguish or special damages. In this regard, however, the "invasion" must result from (a) the intentional intrusion of another's privacy to a degree which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person or (b) a public exposure of another's private affairs to which the general public has not legitimate interest in learning of and which would also be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

The two above-referenced fact scenarios would fit neatly into potential invasion of privacy causes of action in the state of New Jersey. In this Rutgers case, the two students that broadcasted the romantic interlude over the Internet engaged in a public exposure of the other student's private affairs, which resulted in clear mental anguish in the form of suicide. In the Pennsylvania case, there can be no doubt that a school board's ability to obtain photographs from laptops issued to students would be "highly offensive" to a reasonable person, and would ultimately result in harm to the student's interest in privacy. Of course, in either case, evidence of such wrongdoing must be carefully preserved as soon as possible, and attorney consulted to dtermine all potential liability. Further, such privacy invasion may also be the subject of criminal statute violations and criminal investigations.

Two recent settlements between school districts and students highlight society's general intolerance for bullying within schools. As reported in our earlier blog, New Jersey recognizes a cause of action against a school board when that school board fails to prevent, or attempt to prevent, the bullying of one student by others. We indicated in our earlier blog that the basis for such lawsuits in New Jersey is New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The linking of a "bullying" cause of action to New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination allows for a successful claimant to obtain punitive damages and counsel fees, in addition to compensatory damages.

Lenape Valley Regional High School District in Stanhope, New Jersey recently agreed to a settlement of $275,000.00 to a former high school student who is black, alleged that administrators did not properly handle repeated racial harassment by white students against him. In another case involving bullying and harassment, the United States Department of Education reached a voluntary agreement with the Hawaii Public School System over a bullying complaint filed by the parents of a high school student who was repeatedly bullied by other students. The alleged bullying adversely affected her school attendance and grades. While it is not certain to us at this point in time whether the State of Hawaii actually recognizes a cause of action as does New jersey, the high school student's parents filed a complaint with the United States Department of Education alleging that their daughter was being discriminated against. The settlement between the United States Department of Education and Hawaii Public Schools requires various administrators and teachers to undergo sensitivity and harassment training in order to more easily recognize the existence of same.

Given current social trends in technology, including Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites, it would appear that such bullying and harassment cases will increase in number, and may even reach beyond the doors of the school. In this regard, we await the filing of unique causes of action not based upon school harassment but harassment through the other social media. An attorney well versed in ongoing developments in negligence law can determine how to best pursue any similar situated case, so do not hesitate to consult a lawyer as soon as possible if you find yourself or a loved one dealing with bullying.

The mother of a 9 year-old boy killed at Disney's Fort Wilderness Lodge in April of 2010 has now filed a Wrongful Death suit against Walt Disney World Parks and Resorts. This suit is the result of a fatal accident that occurred when the boy was killed by a Disney Transportation Bus while riding his bicycle. The facts of this case reveal the importance of performing an investigation into an accident early on, in order to potentially preserve evidence and generate specific legal theories.

In April of this year, a 9 year-old boy, whose family was staying at Disney's Fort Wilderness Lodge, was operating his bicycle on a service road to the Lodge when he apparently struck the side of the passing Disney bus and was pulled under its rear wheels. Investigation at the time by the Florida Highway Patrol and Disney World revealed that the bus driver was not at fault, and that the bicycle's flat tire caused the child to strike the side of the bus. Many passengers on the bus corroborated the version of events, which showed that the boy actually rode his bicycle into the side of the bus.

At first glance, neither Disney World nor the bus driver should bear any liability for this accident. According to all accounts and versions of the accident, the front of the bus passed the boy on the bicycle safely, and the bus wasn't traveling at an improper speed. However, investigation by the family's attorney revealed that in the area where the accident occurred, there were inappropriate sidewalks or pedestrian paths despite the fact that it was a highly traveled pedestrian and bicyclist area. The family's complaint filed with the Court stated that pedestrians utilizing the area are required to step off of the sidewalk and onto the roadway or even unpaved wetland areas to avoid vehicular traffic. Further, the sidewalks and roadways were improperly designed, due to the fact that railings and steep gullies stop pedestrians and bicyclists from leaving the roadway. Thus, the lawsuit focuses not on the conduct of the bus driver but on the condition of the roadway and sidewalks.

Without the experience of a qualified personal injury attorney, such investigation following this fatal accident may not have come up with an appropriate legal theory and the boy's family would not have been able to be compensated for the boy's conscious pain and suffering and ultimate death. Clearly, the family's rights and interests are being protected and pursued due to the experience and expertise of their attorney. If you think you may be in a situation where you have been in an accident and further investigation may be warranted, contact an attorney immediately.

A recent unreported New Jersey Appellate Division decision reveals that a breach of a duty of care does not always give rise to liability in a negligence claim. In Ocampo v. Famco, the Appellate Division rejected a plaintiff's case wherein a sleepwalking 16 year old fell out of a 2nd story window with a nonfunctioning lock, finding that it was not reasonable for a jury to conclude that such an accident was foreseeable under the circumstances.

A viable cause of action based in negligence requires the following elements: 1. a duty to the plaintiff; 2. the breach of a duty; 3. proximate causation; and 4. damages. In the case involving the 16 year old, there is no doubt that the defendant landlord had a duty to properly maintain the subject apartment, including the window lock. Further, there was no question that the defendant landlord failed to comply with this duty by failing to ensure that the lock was functioning. Unfortunately, the plaintiff was unable to show proximate causation. Basically, under New Jersey law, proximate causation is based, in part, on the foreseeability. In this regard, an injury or damages will not be considered "proximately caused" by another's breach of duty unless a jury can conclude that such damages are "reasonably foreseeable" under the circumstances.

In the above referenced case, the Appellate Division found that because the youngest person residing in the apartment was 16 years old, a jury could not possibly conclude that one would fall out a second story window due to a nonfunctioning lock. In other words, the Appellate Division concluded that it was not foreseeable that someone 16 years older would fall out of 2nd story window due to a nonfunctioning lock.

We disagree with the Appellate Division's holding in this regard! It is just as foreseeable that an "incapacitated" 16 year old could fall out of a 2nd story window as a two or three year old child. "Incapacitated" could include a sleepwalker, a mentally incapacitated person, or someone on prescription or over the counter medication, or under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. Is it not foreseeable that 16 year old, who is the youngest resident in the apartment, could be incapacitated under one of the above theories? We think so. Would the landlord be responsible if the neighbor's 3 year old had fallen out of the window instead? We think so. In our view, what is and is not foreseeable, as far as issues of proximate cause are concerned, should be left to the sound discretion of a jury, and as such, we believe the appellate division erred in dismissing this plaintiff's case.

In these types of cases, only an expert, experienced attorney should be retained in order to protect your rights and pursue your interests to the fullest extent the law allows, and to get the justice you deserve.