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.

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.

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently decided a case wherein it held that waivers of liability in health club contracts and gym membership contracts are valid and enforceable. In Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, LLC, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's case because the contract that the contract signed with the defendant health club contained a "waiver of liability" and, as such, she was unable to be compensated for her pain and suffering, disability and impairment and loss of enjoyment of life for injuries sustained while exercising at the health club.

In the above-referenced case, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant health club to utilize the health club's premises, machines and staff in exchange for a monthly payment. Contained within the contract that the plaintiff signed was a paragraph which purported to prevent the health club from being responsible for any and all injuries sustained by the plaintiff (or any users of the health club) while at the health club or using their facilities. Although contracts of this type have existed for many years, it was generally the long standing rule in the State of New Jersey that parties to a contract could not obtain a waiver of liability for their own negligent acts. For instance, such contracts were upheld if an individual was hurt in the health club or suffered, for instance, a heart attack, while exercising where the injury was in no way related to the general negligence of the health club facility. However, liability against the health club would generally be upheld where the health club's actual negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.

In this recent case, the Supreme Court basically changed and clarified that long standing rule and concluded that such waivers of liability are fully enforceable even where the health club's alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. For instance, in this Supreme Court case, the plaintiff was engaging in a spinning class when the handlebars on the spin bike became loose causing her to fall and sustain serious personal injury. The allegations were that the handlebars were not properly secured by the class instructor. As such, it was the health club's staff's negligence which proximately causes the plaintiff's injury.

The Court held that such a plaintiff may only maintain suit against the health club if it can be shown that the health club's behavior was reckless, intentional or willful and wanton as opposed to just general negligence. Importantly, the Court stopped short of providing blanket immunity to such health clubs when a waiver is signed. For instance, it is not clear whether the case allows for a lawsuit when a patron slips and falls on water in the lobby area of the health club while not engaging in any physical activity. Further, it is not clear whether or not other conditions of the property could give rise to a cause of action.

In light of the above, in the event you or a family member are injured as a result of exercise in a health club setting, it is important to seek the advise of a personal injury attorney who can provide you with proper guidance and fully protect your rights.