New Jersey Injury Lawyer Blog

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.

A recent appellate case, Luchejko v. City of Hoboken, et.al., holds that a condominium association is not liable for dangerous conditions on the public sidewalk abutting the condominium association's property. This recent decision highlights the current status of New Jersey sidewalk liability law. As indicated in prior blogs, a landlord is generally responsible or legally liable for personal injuries as a result of dangerous conditions existing on its property. However, there are significant exceptions when this general rule is applied to public sidewalks within the State of New Jersey.

For purposes of personal injury liability, public sidewalks in the state of New Jersey are basically divided into two categories. The first are those that abut residential premises. The second category includes those public sidewalks that abut commercial premises. As a general rule, a homeowner or an owner of a residential premises will not be responsible for injuries which are the result of dangerous conditions on the public sidewalk abutting their premises. In this regard, it is the local public entity that will be responsible. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, such as where the owner of the residence actually creates the condition that gave rise to the injury. Further, the public entity's responsibility for injuries occurring on the public sidewalks abutting residences will be tempered (?) limited to the provisions of New Jersey's Tort Claims Act.

On the other hand, owners of commercial premises will be responsible for injuries that are sustained as a result of dangerous conditions contained within public sidewalks abutting those commercial premises. Thus, generally, owners of commercial premises have a duty to properly maintain the sidewalks that abut their property. This duty extends to the removal of ice and snow. The theory behind imposing this duty upon commercial establishments relates to the potential revenue generates by the business and shifting the risk away from the public entities.

In any event, the main difficulty in such cases is determining whether or not the property is "commercial" or "residential." For instance, should a multi-tenant apartment building be considered commercial or residential for the purposes of this analysis? Should a church be considered commercial or residential? Basically, the courts have stated that the test really is whether or not the property has the capacity to generate income. Thus, even residential properties that are owned for investment or business purposes will be classified as commercial under this analysis. Similarly, a parochial school and a fraternity house have also been held to be commercial establishments for purposes of this test.

In the recent case of Luchejko v. City of Hoboken et.al. the issue was whether or not a condominium association should be considered commercial or residential entity because the condominium complex at issue in this case was basically and predominantly an owner-occupied, and the condominium association was a "non-profit" corporation, the court considered that this complex qualified as a residential premises. Accordingly, liability was not extended. However, it appears that the Appellate Division did not provide a blanket rule that all condominium associations should be treated in the same way. Each case must be properly reviewed, examined and analyzed, given its unique facts and circumstances of the incident.

The fact sensitive nature of this type of case makes it crucial that a very skilled attorney analyze all the details and circumstances surrounding the incident that led to an injury at the first possible moment, in order to be legally successful and to sufficiently protect your rights.

Many personal injury cases in our legal system involve slips and falls on ice or snow in shopping centers or malls. In a recent case, a court refused to extend the duty of removing that ice and snow to a tenant in a multi-tenant shopping center where the tenant had no contractual duty to do so.

Generally, in any case involving a negligent or dangerous condition of real property in common areas of a shopping center, the owner of the property would be legally responsible for injuries sustained as a result of same. In this regard, the owner has a non-delegable duty to users of the property to either make the dangerous conditions safe or appropriately warn the users of the property of the condition's existence. This basically means that they will not be absolved of liability if they hire someone such as a management or maintenance company to fulfill their duty. They also cannot absolve themselves of liability by placing such responsibility on their tenants in a lease. As the owner of the property, they will ultimately be responsible. However, depending upon the circum stances, others may also be responsible to the injured party for their breach of a duty. For instance, if a landowner hires a snow removal contractor to remove ice and snow from a parking lot, the snow removal contractor will also be responsible if they failed to properly remove same.

Despite the fact that the landowner will always be legally responsible for the conditions of their property in a common area, there are many strategic reasons that attorneys bring suit against others when their client's injuries arise in a common area of a shopping center. Such considerations include availability of insurance, who has day-to-day control of the property and the status of the injured user of the property.

In the recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals case of Holmes v. Kimco Realty, the plaintiff slipped and fell in a common area parking lot of a shopping center. Plaintiff's counsel sued Lowe's, which was the tenant closest to the area of the plaintiff's fall. In fact, a sign in the area of the fall indicated that Lowe's customers regularly and routinely used the area exclusive to all other tenants. The lease between Lowe's and the landowner did not require Lowe's to remove ice or snow from common areas although they were responsible for the cost of same through a CAM charge (Common Area Maintenance charge). For some reason unclear in the decision, the plaintiff's attorney was unable to properly identify the landowner before the statute of limitations expired. Thus, it was important that liability be placed upon the tenant for the plaintiff's case to survive.

Under these facts the court held that a tenant has no duty to remove ice or snow or to warn its patrons of its presence despite the fact that its patrons exclusive used the area. The court relied on prior case law and the fact that the lease agreement between Lowe's and the landlord did not require Lowe's to take any action with regard to snow or ice removal. Prior case law suggested that a tenant would not have responsibility to remove ice or snow from a common area sidewalk regardless of how close it was to the tenant's front door.

Despite current case law, we would suggest a different result. A tenant in possession such as a Lowe's is in the best position to determine the condition of the property around them. Thus, they are also in the best position to warn of or rectify any dangerous ice or snow conditions. Despite the fact that a landlord and tenant may make their own contract as to who has the responsibility between them as to the removal of ice and snow, the general public has no protection if the contractually responsible party fails to uphold their contractual duty. Thus, under the court's holding, a tenant who has no contractual responsibility to remove ice and snow from common areas around its store including its parking lot and sidewalks may open its doors for business regardless of the site conditions with no repercussions.

In light of the above, it is important to see a competent attorney as early as possible after such an incident so that the proper investigation can be done and all of you rights can be preserved.

A lawsuit recently filed in Texas on behalf of a woman killed by a drunk driver alleges that a local bar improperly served drinks to a patron until he was inebriated, and then allowed him to leave the premises in his own vehicle. The suit reportedly alleges that the establishment should have either stopped the service of alcohol earlier in time or prevented him from driving his vehicle. Cases of this type are recognized in the State of New Jersey where a licensed establishment fails to properly monitor the amount of alcohol served to its patrons.

New Jersey is among the majority of states that allows a cause of action against a bar or other food or beverage establishment licensed to serve alcohol when one of its patrons causes an injury to an innocent third party. In such cases, a litigant or plaintiff must established that improper actions by the patron were the result of inebriation and that the entity that served the alcohol did so in an improper manner. Thus, in New Jersey, the first appropriate legal inquiry is whether or not the person that caused the injury was intoxicated to the extent that would alter his or her behavior, and inhibit his or her ability to properly and reasonably act under the circumstances. In order to establish this intoxication and resulting inhibition, an expert may determine the level of alcohol in the person at the time of the accident or injury, and may explain the effect of that level of alcohol on the reflexes and reasoning of the individual.

The second legal inquiry that must be made is whether the establishment served alcohol to the individual at a time when it was unreasonable to so. How do we know when it is unreasonable to serve alcohol to any individual? New Jersey cases hold that the server of alcohol will be responsible for any injuries caused by an intoxicated person when that person was served alcohol even though that person was "visibly intoxicated." Many factors go into the definition of "visible intoxication," including but not limited to the number of drinks served to a person, the slurring of the person's speech, the existence of bloodshot eyes, and the demeanor of the person. Of course, because each person acts differently when consuming alcohol, the number of drinks and the blood alcohol level for each "visibly intoxicated" person may vary. Once again, an expert will needed to establish a person's blood level at varying points of service of the alcohol. Generally, an expert accomplishes this by utilizing a known blood alcohol level and the time of consumption, and extrapolating back in time from that point based on a person's metabolism and alcohol burn rate.

In all such cases, it is imperative to perform an investigation as soon as possible, at the earliest possible point after the incident or accident, to establish the existence of witnesses and obtain other evidence. Witnesses can be utilized to testify as to the actions of the intoxicated person immediately prior to the accident and during the time that the establishment continued to serve that person alcohol, in order to prove the above referenced requirements.

Importantly, the New Jersey Supreme Court has extended such cases to the social host context in a lawsuit handled by our law firm. Basically, this case made it a law that any person serving alcohol to another, whether in a bar or club setting, or at a backyard barbeque, should take steps to monitor the consumption of alcohol of their guests and cut them off form further drinking when the person first exhibits signs of intoxication. Regardless of which side of this incident you may find yourself on, it is crucial to contact a skilled, experienced attorney immediately.

A recently filed lawsuit alleging that improper construction led to the existence of mold asserts both property damage claims and personal injury claims. Generally, cases of this type assert that either the builder or their sub contractors were negligent in the construction of the plaintiff's dwelling or that a landlord or maintenance company were negligent in failing to properly maintain the premises. Under either scenario, the basis of these claims is that water was allowed to infiltrate into the buildings and provide optimal conditions in which mold is able to grow and thrive. Oftentimes, the mold is hidden in areas such as crawl spaces and attics and may not be discovered for some time.

With regard to personal injury claims, the existence of certain types of mold cause the inhabitants of the building to will suffer from various illnesses which are usually respiratory in nature. The key to successfully litigating such cases is establishing the causal link between the complained of illness and the mold that exists. Thus, it is important for the injured person to obtain and retain samples of the mold once it is found. Usually a medical mycologist will be able to test the mold to determine its genus and species and to establish as causal relation between the mold and the illness.

Once a causal connection is made between the mold and the illness it is then important to have an expert determine the cause of the mold's existence. It must be determined if the mold's presence was caused by improper or negligent construction of the premises, the improper or negligent maintenance of the premises or some other reason. It must be mentioned that a builder may not be sued in New Jersey more than ten years after the Certificate of Occupancy of the building was issued.

Accordingly, it is important to seek the advice of both medical and legal professionals as soon as one believes that they are suffering an illness from the existence of mold. Failure to do so may result in the inability to properly pursue certain rights under the law.

A recent head on motor vehicle accident caused by an apparent sneeze raises questions as to whether the sneezing driver can be held responsible for such an accident. The operator of a motor vehicle reportedly blamed his loss of control of his vehicle and ensuing head on accident on the fact that he sneezed. The answer under New Jersey law is not clear.

Generally, an operator of a motor vehicle in New Jersey has an obligation to share the road with all other users of the highway and make reasonable and proper observations so as to avoid negligently injuring others. Basically, a driver is charged with maintaining proper control of his vehicle at all times and take such actions as a reasonably prudent person would take under like circumstances.

However, there are times when certain circumstances may arise while one is operating a car where an accident or collision occurs despite the fact that all drivers acted reasonably and prudent under the circumstances they are confronted with. New Jersey case law ascribes to the Sudden Emergency Doctrine. This Doctrine states that when one is confronted with a sudden unexpected occurrence, they will only be required to take actions that reasonable people would take under the same or similar circumstances. However, the types of "sudden emergencies" that would allow a driver to benefit from this doctrine are those that are totally unexpected. For instance, the loss of control of a vehicle on ice and snow in a snow storm would be reasonably expected. Further, it has been held that an operator of a vehicle should reasonably expect other drivers to stop short in front of them or to cut them off.

Under this analysis, would a sneeze constitute a sudden emergency? No New Jersey case has addressed this specific issue. However, it would appear that the answer lies in the knowledge of the driver concerning prior instances of sneezing that may have caused him to lose control temporarily in the past as well as what specific actions were taken on the date of the accident. For instance, an operator of a vehicle that loses consciousness due to a heart attack or other similar medical condition will only be responsible for an accident occurring as a result of his unconsciousness if he knew or should have known of the possibility that such a result would occur. In this regard, inquiry will be made into prior instances of losing consciousness and whether the driver knew or should have known that it was likely such an attack would occur while driving.

Thus, in the case of the sneezing driver, all of the facts must be known before making a determination. Had he suffered from sneezing fits in the past? If so, when? If so, did they render him unable to control a vehicle? Did he have similar issues earlier in the day? The answer ultimately will lie in the answers to these questions, the arguments asserted by counsel and the decisions by the assigned Judge in any lawsuit brought.

In two recent unpublished opinions, the Appellate Division imposed liability on JCP&L (Jersey Central Power and Light) for failing to properly maintain streetlights. Under two different fact patterns arising in Point Pleasant, New Jersey, the Appellate Division held that JCP&L had a duty to properly maintain overhead street lighting and could be held negligently responsible by the injured plaintiffs in each case.

In Anderson v. Davoren, the plaintiff was injured when she was struck by a motor vehicle while crossing a street in Point Pleasant. The driver of the vehicle was traveling the speed limit and claimed that he did not see the pedestrian in the crosswalk. It was undisputed that the street light in the area was not operable and both parties claimed that the insufficient lighting led to the accident. In Press v. Point Pleasant, the plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell over a parking space barrier. Once again the overhead light was inoperable and the plaintiff claimed that it was the insufficient lighting that caused her to fall.

Under the facts presented, the court held that JCP&L, which entered into an agreement with Point Pleasant to repair and maintain public lighting, also had a duty to members of the public using the public way. Because it is reasonably foreseeable that members of the public would utilize the areas, the utility owed a duty to properly maintain the public lighting and could be held responsible where the failed lighting led to the occurrence of an incident giving rise to an injury.

These two cases are perfect examples of good lawyers establishing liability against an entity with "deep pockets" where there may not have been a sufficient case against a primary tortfeasor. For instance there may be situations where the primary tortfeasor was protected by some type of
immunity or had insufficient insurance coverage to properly compensate the plaintiff.