New Jersey Injury Lawyer Blog

Two cases recently decided by New Jersey's Appellate Division addressed a statute which was previously thought to provide immunity to 911 operators engaged in the course of their employment. The Appellate Division in Massachi v. City of Newark Police Department and Wilson v. City of Jersey City held that 911 operators and dispatchers could be held liable for injuries sustained or proximately cause by their failure to adhere to established protocols and guidelines. In Massachi, a female student was abducted directly outside the Seton Hall University Campus in South Orange, New Jersey. Two of her friends immediately called 911 to report the abduction. The 911 operator failed to follow the appropriate departmental procedures and guidelines in that although she put the information into the 911 computer system, she failed to note the last known location of the abductor's car, failed to note that the car was in motion, failed to record the vehicle's path of travel and mis-identified the car as a Chevy Blazer as opposed to a Plymouth Blazer. Further, she failed to keep the person reporting the crime on the phone to enable to provide an update to the responding unit.

In addition to the above, two off-duty Essex County Sheriff's Officers also witnessed the abduction and also called 911. The 911 operator that they spoke with ran the license plate of the abductor's vehicle and printed out the name and address of the vehicle's owner. Unfortunately, he failed to issue a general alert to all police units in neighboring municipalities and also failed to contact the police in the municipality where the abductor resided. It was the plaintiff's decedent's claim that the girl who was abducted was ultimately murdered due to the fact that the police units could not properly respond as a result of the 911 dispatcher's failure to comply with guidelines.

Importantly, a New Jersey statute (N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10) provides various immunities to phone carriers and dispatchers concerning the failure of the 911 system. The Appellate Division under the two cases before it, specifically held that the above-referenced statute does not afford immunity to the 911 emergency communication center or its employees where they negligently render 911 services including dispatching police to an incorrect location, failing to keep the caller on the line to update the police of the location of the perpetrator and for failing to broadcast an alert to surround municipalities. Accordingly, although there is immunity for the failure of the system to work, there will be no immunity for 911 operators or dispatchers where they fail to follow protocol.

In the event you or a family member believes you have suffered injuries as a result of improper actions of a 911 operator, it is imperative that you seek the advice of a qualified personal injury attorney.

The Boston Herald hasreported that a lawsuit was recently filed against Disney World by a Pennsylvania woman who claims she was improperly touched and groped by a Donald Duck character while she was on vacation in Disney World.

The plaintiff's lawsuit claims that she sought an autograph from Donald Duck while on Disney World's property and, instead of obtaining the autograph, she was groped and molested by the costumed bird. The lawsuit alleges that Disney World, through its employees, were guilty of "negligence, battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress." It is not known the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries as a result of the incident.

Importantly, while the nature of this lawsuit seems bizarre, the plaintiff's cause of action is viable. The law in the State of New Jersey and in most jurisdictions reveals that a lawsuit based on "assault and battery" will be viable if there is any "non-consensual" touching by one person of another. Although "assault and battery" conjures imaging of being punched, kicked, attacked or beat up with some inanimate object, it is simply defined as any non-consensual contact between one person and another that causes harm. Thus, although we do not know the nature and extent of the plaintiff's harm caused by Donald Duck, one can imagine "uninvited" or "non-consensual" contact between a person in a Disney costume and a park visitor merely seeking an autograph or photograph of the character. It should be noted that the varying degrees of "damages" in such suits range from mere emotional distress to physical injuries. Of course, juries and courts will perceive such cases differently depending upon the nature and extent of such damages.

If you believe that you have suffered any type of damages as a result of someone's improper or non-consensual touching, it is important for you to seek the advice of a qualified personal injury attorney to properly assess the nature and extent of both liability and your damages to determine whether or not a viable case exists in which you could obtain compensation for pain and suffering.

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 trend has come to our attention in the realm of motor vehicle accident settlements. More than one of our clients, upon initial consultation for personal injuries related to a motor vehicle accident, has advised us that they have received and cashed checks from the other person's motor vehicle insurance carrier prior to meeting with us. These checks are generally in the $250.00 to $500.00 range. Importantly, although our clients are being told that the small payments are being provided to them for medical co-pays and deductibles, our close review of the documentation provided with the checks has revealed that the checks are being provided in exchange for a full and final settlement of any and all personal injuries.

The clients that have approached us with these checks were shocked to find out that they may have jeopardized their right to collect full and complete compensatory damages for their pain and suffering, disability and impairment, and loss of enjoyment of life by merely receiving, acknowledging and cashing these small checks when they were specifically told by the insurance companies that the checks were being provided to them for their medical co-pays and their deductibles. In this regard, New Jersey law provides that a tortfeasor will not be responsible for any medical co-pays and/or deductibles in a motor vehicle accident. As such, it is clear to us that these insurance companies were clearly misrepresenting the facts to our clients for purposes of fraudulently entering into a settlement agreement.

Fortunately, after our involvement, a majority of the insurance companies have "backed away" from their position that the case has been settled and will allow our clients' remaining personal injury claims to go forward. More astoundingly, at least one insurance company has refused to back off their position and we are presently looking into filing suit against them and all of the insurance companies that have engaged in this practice as a result of their engaging in fraud, deceit and violation of various New Jersey statutes concerning Fair Settlement Practices.

In light of all of the above, it is especially important that, if you are involved in a motor vehicle accident, you do not sign any paperwork provided to you by the other driver's insurance company, or cash any checks provided to you by them, before speaking to a lawyer qualified in the area of personal injury litigation. While generally checks payable to body shops for property damage and checks payable directly to you for vehicles which have been totaled as a result of the accident are safe to sign and/or deposit, we suggest speaking to an attorney first.

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.

An LA woman recently sued Google, reportedly, after she was struck by a car on State Route 224 in Salt Lake County, Utah. The woman alleges that she followed directions that were given to her on her blackberry through Google Maps, and that those instructions led her onto a roadway where vehicles travel at a "high rate of speed" and there are no pedestrian sidewalks. The lawsuit alleges that Google failed to warn the Plaintiff of the known dangers of the roadway. The suit also included a claim against the operator of the vehicle which struck her.

While a lawsuit of this type sounds outrageous on its face, the application of general principles of negligence reveal that such a cause of action is not far fetched. Generally, the manufacturer or creator of a product (in this case Google Maps), has a duty to make the product safe for the end users, as well as for its intended use. If some component of such a product creates a foreseeable harm or danger to the end user, the creator or manufacturer must provide adequate and appropriate warnings concerning the products' use. (link to CRUW product liability)

In this case, the end user of the product, the Plaintiff, merely alleges that Google Maps failed to warn her of the absence of sidewalks as well as the fact that State Route 224 contains motor vehicles traveling at high rates of speed. She further alleges that, had such warnings been given, she may have chosen a different route or path.

Obviously, common sense also comes into play when we discuss such liability. In this regard, the Plaintiff will have to explain to the judge or the jury her reasoning for proceeding by foot in an area where there were no pedestrian sidewalks. This explanation, or the lack of the woman's common sense, will be weighed against Google's alleged failure to provide appropriate or adequate warnings. Under NJ law, the woman's cause of action against Google would be barred if her improper actions rose to a level higher than the improper actions of Google. In this case, it is fair to say that a majority of individuals reading this blog would agree that her indiscretion walking on a highway without a sidewalk should negate any liability on behalf of Google. However, under our legal system, that would be up to the judge and jury to ultimately decide at a trial after ALL the facts and circumstances are made known.

Regardless of your opinion on this matter, one thing is clear: the attorney for the woman is exploring every avenue in order to properly and effectively represent his client in an effort to look for any and all individuals and all companies which may be responsible for the personal injuries suffered. If you are injured, you should ensure your rights are sufficiently represented.

It has been reported that the city of Charleston, West Virginia has recently agreed to a $25,000.00 settlement with a family who filed a lawsuit against the city after they were involved in a motor vehicle accident with a drug dealer who was fleeing from police. The chase allegedly occurred during an attempt to set up a drug bust by an under cover police officer. For lawyers, this settlement raises issues as to whether or not such a litigation could be supported by the law in the state of New Jersey.

Liability of police officers and other public entities are governed by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA). New Jersey's Tort Claims Act basically provides various immunities to various public entities and their employees for actions undertaken during the course of their employment. Further, the TCA also limits various aspects of many causes of action.

With regard to the liability of police officers or police departments involved in a car chase, there is a specific immunity provided in the TCA at NJSA 59:5-2(b)2. Specifically, the statute indicates that neither a public entity nor employee will be responsible for any injury resulting or caused by an escaping or escaped person or by a law enforcement officer in pursuit of such a person. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, in the case of Tice v. Cramer, 133 N.J.347 (1993) held that the specific immunity applied to situations where law enforcement officers were in pursuit of an "escaping or escaped person." The court held that the definition of "escaped" or "escaping" persons included individuals who were not previously in the custody of a law enforcement agency. Accordingly, any time a police officer is in pursuit of a suspect, the immunity would apply. This would include individuals who fail to yield to a police office on even routine traffic violations. Thus, New Jersey law provides immunity to law enforcement agencies and police officers when ever a person is injured as a result of a police chase, whether the injury is sustained from the officer's vehicle or the fleeing suspect's vehicle.

The more difficult case for a lawyer involves injuries sustained when one is injured in a motor vehicle accident with a police officer's vehicle when the officer is merely responding to the scene of a call. In this instance, the police officer is not specifically pursuing an "escaping or escaped" person but is merely responding to a dispatched location. In these types of cases, the officers may be entitle to the catch all "good faith" as set forth in NJSA 59:3-3, which immunizes a public employee so long as that public employee acts in good faith in the execution or enforcement of any law.

Obviously, car accidents arising out of police chases or with law enforcement officers present complex legal issues and any such cases should be reviewed by an attorney as soon as possible.

The purpose of this blog is to follow up on information concerning various potential causes of action, which were discussed in our May 4, 2010 blog. In that blog, we discussed potential causes of action by one parent against another parent and by children against a parent for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress due to parental actions. Those possibilities were discussed with regard to a lawsuit that was filed against Miami Heat star Dwayne Wade by his wife during the pendency of a divorce action.

Interestingly, a day before our blog was published, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division in Segal v. Lynch discussed issues similar in nature to the Wade case as well as the issues discussed in our blog. In Segal, the father, who was a non-custodial parent of two minor children, who brought an action on behalf of his children against their mother for the negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Unlike the Wade case, however, the plaintiff here alleged that the basis of the infliction of emotion distress were the actions undertaken by the mother to alienate the children from the father. For instance, the plaintiff father alleged that the mother blocked all of his emails to the children, and forbade the children from emailing or otherwise contacting their father for a period greater than three months. Additionally, the father alleged that the mother told the children "false and spiteful things" about him. The father claimed that once visitation continued after this three-month period, it was clear to him that the mother's actions had a "negative impact" on his relationship with the children. In support of this claim, the father pointed to a court appointed psychologist's opinion, which determined that the mother did engage in "alienating behavior with the children."

As suspected in our prior blog, the father's claim for alienation of affections was similarly under New Jersey's Heart Balm Statute (N.J.S.A. 2A:23-1). The court then went on to discuss the proofs required to support claims of negligent and intentional emotional distress. In this regard, the court found no barrier of one parent asserting such a cause of action against another parent. However, the court's analysis went further in dealing with such a cause of action where the "best interest of the children" was the pivotal issue.

In this case of first impression, the Appellate Division cited the court's parens patriae responsibility, which requires the court to "care for and protect those unable to do so for themselves such as children." The court then balanced the "fundamental principles" of a child's best interest against the rights of civil litigants to obtain compensation for their injuries from a tortfeasor. The court acknowledged that the acknowledgment of either interest would cause detriment to the other.

In noting that the main issues in such a litigation would require the children to provide significant evidence about their relationships with their parents and, in effect, provide testimony "against" one parent or the other, the court concluded that allowing such a case to go forward would be in direct contravention to the best interest of the children. Accordingly, under the facts set forth in the plaintiff's complaint, the court dismissed the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. In doing so, however, the court did not foreclosure the possibility of one parent pursuing such a cause of action. Instead, the court indicated that such an action would be better suited for the Family Part and that a Family Part Judge would be better served in evaluating and determining the "legal ethnicity" of such a cause of action in the preliminary stages of any such litigation process. It remains to be seen whether or not this matter will make its way to the Supreme Court of New Jersey to further clarify this opinion.

In any event, it would appear that the current State of New Jersey law is not far from what is set forth in our prior blog. However, the Appellate has indicated that such claims must be brought in the Family Part as opposed to the Law Division so that Family Part Judges may "weed out" cases early on in the process. Thus, the cases must handled on a "case-by-case" basis by the Family Part Judge assigned to the matter to determine whether or not a factual basis exists to go forward.

Cases of bullying in schools by other students have been all over the news in recent weeks. Unfortunately, these news events have ranged from severe injuries suffered by students at the hands of other students to suicides committed as a result of the emotional stress suffered from constant unchecked bullying. This blog will briefly deal with the potential legal remedies a bullied student may have through personal injury law.

First, it is clear that the victim of physical or emotional injuries, which are the direct result of an assault by another student, clearly has a cause of action against the person who committed the assault. Other individuals may be included as responsible parties if it can be proven that they somehow contributed to the actions of the party committing the assault. For instance, if they encouraged or assisted in the assault in any way such as luring the victim to a particular location or advising the assaulter of the location of the victim, while knowing that the assault was imminent. The success of these types of claims, however, is often dependent upon the availability of applicable insurance coverage or assets owned by the assaulter.
Where the injuries are emotional in nature, arising solely out of verbal abuse or by entries on a social networking website, the answer is not so clear. If the words stated or posted online are untrue and cause damage to the student's reputation, a cause of action in defamation may exist. However, very restrictive rules apply in New Jersey in this regard, and these cases are very fact sensitive concerning both the causes of action and damages. If it can be proven that the words posted online or stated in public, even if true, were meant to cause distress or mental anguish, a cause of action for the negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress may exist. Once again, issues of insurance coverage and availability of assets will determine the feasibility of these types of claims.

The final question is whether a school may be sued for such an injury. It is clear that a school will not be held responsible for physical or emotional injuries caused by bullying where it had no prior notice of the bullying and had no reason to know of same. Even where it can be shown that the school had notice of the bullying, New Jersey Courts have been hesitant to incur liability upon a school board unless it can be shown that the bullying was pervasive. Clearly, there is a common law duty for the schools to protect the children that come under their care on a day-to-day basis. In this regard, there is no doubt that common law principles of general negligence will provide a cause of action against a school board where it can be shown that the bullying was severe and pervasive, the school had actual knowledge of the pervasive and severe nature of same, and a student suffered harm as a result of such bullying. Importantly, however, any such claims of negligence against a school board will be subject to the limitations of New Jersey's Tort Claims Act.

In 2007 the Supreme Court of New Jersey went one step further in the case of L.W. v. Toms River Regional Board of Education, 189 N.J. 381 (2007) and held that students could potentially have cause of action against a school board for the school board's failure to stop severe and pervasive bullying under New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination statute. Basically, the court held that if the bullying was the result of a protected class status under the Law Against Discrimination (such as race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, etc.) and the school failed to prevent further bullying after it has knowledge of same, it could be liable to the student under the Law Against Discrimination. Importantly, what this basically means to a student with a potential cause of action is that their case would not be subject to the limitations of the Tort Claims Act; and they would potentially be entitled to counsel fees and punitive damages against the school board.
Inevitably, these cases are always fact sensitive and only and experienced attorney would be able to properly determine whether such causes of action exist.

A recent recall of another brand of drop side cribs remind parents of the danger of cribs where one side moves up and down to allow a parent easier access to the baby or toddler. The Consumer Product Safety Commission once again alerted parents to the dangers of these cribs in a warning released on May 7, 2010. According to the Commission, at least 32 infants and toddlers have been killed by way of strangulation or suffocation as a result of defects in these types of cribs. Another 14 similar deaths could not be conclusively related to any defects. The Commission notes that the problems are the result of less than adequate structural integrity and the gaps that are formed to accommodate the sliding rail.

Unfortunately, many products that are placed into the stream of commerce are often unsafe for children. In addition to cribs, such other examples include various toys, car seats, bath basins, strollers and infant carriers. The manufacturers of such products can be held monetarily responsible for any injuries sustained by the end users of these defective products under New Jersey's Product Liability laws. (Link to our website where I set forth Product liability law). Litigation involving these types of cases are generally design defect cases where the manufacturer can be held responsible for their failure to properly design a product that they place into the stream of commerce. As set forth on our firm's website, an expert witness will be required to prove the design defect even if the product had previously been recalled.

Of course, one of the main purposes of personal injury law is to prevent injuries to innocent parties such as children. This purpose is often achieved through the ability to bring such product defect lawsuits against manufacturers of dangerous products such as the sliding rail cribs. In this regard, it is hoped that the companies' exposure to monetary damages awards for the injuries their products cause will lead to changes in the way they research and design their products. Hopefully, this, in turn, will lead to safer products and decreased injuries overall.

Obviously, we, as the end users of products that are placed on the market, are not in a position to determine whether the products we purchase for use for us or our families are designed in a safe manner. Therefore, it is imperative to periodically check with the Consumer Product Safety Commission to determine what new products have been recalled. You may go to their website at www.cpsc.gov or by calling them at 800-638-2772.

The wife of Miami Heat star Dwayne Wade recently filed a lawsuit on her own behalf and on behalf of her children reportedly claiming that Wade and his girlfriend negligently and intentionally caused them emotional distress. The bases of her claims are that Wade and his girlfriend engaged in inappropriate sexual foreplay contact in the presence of the children and the girlfriend otherwise caused her emotional distress in breaking up her marriage. It is important to note that Wade and his wife are currently embroiled in bitter divorce litigation.
As stated earlier in this blog, such claims of alienation of affections are barred in the State of New Jersey. Thus, the wife's claims against the girlfriend would be barred pursuant to New Jersey law. However, given the nature of the claims asserted by her on behalf of her children, these claims would probably survive.
Specifically, New Jersey law allows for the recovery of monetary damages where it can be shown that either the negligent or intentional actions of another caused emotional distress. These types of claims are generally seen in personal injury type cases where the trauma of the negligent event causes some type of emotional problems. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is one such diagnosis that is ordinarily seen. However, there is no requirement that the triggering event be traumatic in nature. Any action could cause the basis of the emotional distress. Importantly, however, depending upon the nature of the emotional distress claim, the law may require that such emotional stress be accompanied by physical symptoms such as headaches, gastrointestinal ailments or skin disorders that a physician can link to an emotional diagnosis.
In any event, if it can be proven that Wade's children are suffering from emotional symptoms that can be related to actions undertaken by he or his girlfriend in their presence, the cause of action may stand. However, such a case filed in the state of New Jersey also raises issues of parental immunity. That is, children may not sue their parents for injuries caused by the parents' general negligence arising out of the supervision of the child. For instance, a child may not maintain a cause of action against a parent sustained while playing with matches because the parent was not properly supervising the child. While the Wade case does not necessarily fit neatly into this category, arguments can be made by a skilled attorney that the same legal theories apply.
Regardless of all of the above, it does not appear that any court will have the opportunity to make rulings on this case. In our opinion, the case was clearly filed for purposes of obtaining an advantage in the divorce matter.

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.

In a recent blog we discussed the fact that a person injured by a drunk driver may have a cause of action for damages against the bar or licensed establishment that actually served the alcohol to the drunk driver. As a follow up to that blog, the New Jersey Appellate Division recently decided a case having to do with the drunk driver's ability to sue a bar for injuries suffered when their alcohol consumption led to a motor vehicle accident causing bodily injury.

In Voss v. Tranquilino, a driver of a motorcycle was injured in a motor vehicle collision with an automobile and sustained serious personal injuries. At the time of the accident, the motorcycle operator's Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) was almost twice the legal driving limit. He was charged with driving while intoxicated and pled guilty to that charge. He then filed a lawsuit against the bar that served him he liquor as well as the driver of the other vehicle involved in the crash.

Importantly, A New Jersey statute (N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(b)) provides that a driver who is convicted of driving while intoxicated "shall have no cause of action for the recovery [for personal injury damages] sustained as a result of the accident." Based on the language of that statute, the bar moved to have the case dismissed against it. The court had to decide whether the above-cited statute was meant to protect licensed establishments from a lawsuit brought against them by the individuals to who they negligently served alcohol. (Please see our prior blog as to what constitutes the negligent service of alcohol). A literal plain reading of the statute's language would lead one to conclude that the case should not be allowed.

The court, in a lengthy opinion, concluded that drunk driver may bring a cause of action against a bar or licensed establishment. The reasoning of the court was twofold. First, the Legislative history of the above statute made clear that the statute was enacted for the purposes of attempting to control automobile insurance rates and, as such, allowing a cause of action against the bar would not violate this goal. In fact that statute is found in the motor vehicle section of New Jersey Statute. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the court made a public policy determination that allowing the bar to escape liability in this situation could lead to less diligence in the bar's monitoring of its patron alcohol consumption thus, in turn, leading to an increase in drunk driving.

Although at first glance it may seem improper to allow a drunk driver to pursue personal injuries in that it does not have a deterrent effect upon driving while intoxicated, we applaud the court for its decision. In this regard, while we all have personal responsibility as to the amount of alcohol we drink and whether we drive thereafter, a licensed establishment is sometimes in a better position to protect its patrons from their own behavior of overindulging. This is because as one commences alcohol consumption their reasoning and judgment may become impaired and their decision to continue drinking or driving may be flawed. The alcohol server, however, has the ability to monitor the patron's alcohol consumption and cut them off at the appropriate time. An opposite conclusion in this case could lead to a decreased vigilance on the bar's part in this regard. This is why a skilled attorney is needed to determine the best course of action for a claim.

In a recent New Jersey Supreme Court case, the Court addressed the issue of whether a realtor who was involved in the rental of a property could be sued for injuries sustained by a tenant in the property as a result of a dangerous condition. Interestingly, the New Jersey Supreme Court Justices were equally divided on the issue which means that the decision of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

The facts of the case, Reyes v. Egner, are rather simple. The owner of the subject property, a vacation home in Stone Harbor, recently had purchased the property for purposes of renting it on short-term vacation property rentals. In this regard, the owner hired the defendant realtor to list the property for such rentals and authorized them to take various actions in performance of this task. These actions included showing the property to potential renters and another included making emergency repairs as needed. In exchange, the realtor received a 12% commission of any rental obtained.

The plaintiff's family rented the subject property for a two-week period after viewing same. Specifically, the plaintiff's daughter entered into the lease and the family commenced their vacation in the home without incident. After nine days, the plaintiff, a seventy-year-old man, opened a sliding glass door leading from his bedroom onto a deck. It was the first time in the nine days that he had opened this door. Because of an improper step down, he was caused to fall and sustain injury as he attempted to enter the deck.

On those facts, the Appellate Division and half of the Supreme Court concluded that the realtor had no liability for the plaintiff's injury. While this appeared to be a departure from the current state of the law, the courts explained that their holding was limited to the facts of the case before it. In a prior case, Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426 (1993) the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a realtor would be responsible where a persons suffered an injury as a result of a defective condition of a property where an open house was taking place. This case has been read and interpreted to mean that a realtor has a duty to inspect for and either correct or warn of dangerous conditions that exist on properties that they are showing to prospective tenants or purchasers.

The Justices on the present court that agreed with the Appellate Division's holding distinguished the facts before it from the Hopkins case by indicating that, unlike the injured parties in the cases that have come down since Hopkins but before the present case, the plaintiff's family was actually in possession of the premises for nine days prior to the incident and would have been in a better position than the realtor to discover and be aware of dangerous conditions such as the one complained of by the plaintiff. The Justices that disagreed with the Appellate Division and would have held the realtor responsible cited to the realtor's duties under the contract with the homeowner and concluded that the realtor was in the best position to know of and either warn or correct the dangerous condition. They felt that the case was analogous to Hopkins.

Our reading of this case leads us to conclude that there has not really been a change in the law concerning realtor liability. We believe that the holding of Hopkins is alive and well and that realtors still have a duty to perform inspections and either warn of or correct dangerous conditions when showing properties to the public. The plaintiff here lost the case on the facts. That is we believe the courts would have concluded differently if the plaintiff were injured on the initial walkthrough of the property as opposed to after having possession for nine days. As it was before, each case must be decided on its specific facts.

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.