Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

Should Res Ipsa Loquitur be Modified? The Appellate Division Says No, Absent a “Signal” From the Supreme Court

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Nov 30, 2020 in Appellate Division, Effect of decisions by other courts, Judges, Practice Pointers, Summary judgment | 0 comments

Pannucci v. Edgewood Park Senior Housing- Phase 1, LLC, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2020). As Judge Ostrer explained in his opinion for the Appellate Division today, the “settled doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,” which means “the thing speaks for itself,” allows a jury “to infer a defendant’s negligence, enabling a plaintiff to make a prima facie case.” To trigger the doctrine, a plaintiff must show that “first, the accident was one that ‘ordinarily bespeaks negligence,’ that is, someone’s negligence more likely than not caused the accident; second, the defendant exclusively controlled the thing that caused the injury; and third, the injury did not result from the plaintiff’s ‘own voluntary act or neglect'” (quoting McDaid v. Aztec W. Condo. Ass’n, 234 N.J. 130, 142-43 (2018), another elevator case).

Plaintiff lived at a senior citizen apartment building owned and managed by defendants. Another defendant serviced the building’s elevator. Plaintiff approached the elevator while walking her dog, which was on a long leash. The dog ran into the elevator four feet ahead of plaintiff. The elevator doors closed on plaintiff as she extended her right arm, which held the leash, into the elevator cab, and plaintiff pushed her left side against the closing left door and managed to “throw herself onto the elevator.” In doing all that, she injured her right arm, left shoulder, left side, back, and neck.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, and plaintiff invoked res ipsa loquitur in response. There was no dispute as to the first prong of the doctrine, since the defendant that serviced the elevator had “exclusive control” over it, and that fact might “bespeak negligence.” But the Law Division held that plaintiff did not prove the third element– her own lack of negligence– since, as Judge Ostrer out it, “[o]ne could reasonably infer that plaintiff negligently caused her own injuries by keeping her dog on such a long leash, and forcibly stopping the elevator doors.”

Plaintiff appealed, and her opening brief argued that McDaid required reversal since it held that res ipsa loquitur “applies to an allegedly malfunctioning elevator door that causes injury to a passenger.” But that case, Judge Ostrer observed, “expressly limited its holding to the first prong of the res ipsa loquitur test.” McDaid did not address the third prong or its validity.

Plaintiff’s reply brief turned out to be a key aspect of tis appeal. There, for the first time, she argued that the Appellate Division should “discard the third prong because it defeats the purpose of the Comparative Negligence Act. And in a footnote in her reply brief, plaintiff stated that she did not address the second prong because [the defendant that managed the building] did not ‘seriously argue’ that defendants lacked exclusive control of the elevator.”

Judge Ostrer noted that since it was improper to raise issues for the first time, on appeal and only in a reply brief, the panel would have been justified in declining to consider the argument that the third prong should be abrogated. But the court chose to consider that argument “because of its public importance.”

Plaintiff cited a number of cases from other jurisdictions that had “found the third prong incompatible with their states’ comparative negligence statutes.” Some of those cases involved “malfunctioning elevators.” A leading treatise agreed with those cases.

Judge Ostrer found those authorities “impressive,” but declined to follow them, for two reasons. “First, plausible grounds for the third prong remain. Second and more importantly, it is not for us to disturb settled precedent absent a signal from the Supreme Court that it would do so.”

The first point was supported by section 17, comment h, of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm. The second point recognized that the Supreme Court, whose decisions bind lower tribunals, had reiterated the third prong as recently as 2018, in McDaid, and that prong, adopted by the Court in 1958, had “survived without uncertainty in the years following,” citing other Supreme Court cases. The Appellate Division, Judge Ostrer said, cannot “change the law the Supreme Court has established,” absent “significant precedent to suggest that the Court is prepared to alter a settled rule of law.” Here, there was none.

The panel then discussed the argument that plaintiff met the second prong as to the defendant property manager but found it “unfair” to reach that argument. That was because plaintiff had raised it “not just in her reply brief, but in a footnote.” Having not addressed the second prong in her main brief, which apparently led the defendant not to discuss it either since plaintiff had not raised it, plaintiff could not rely in her reply brief on defendant’s silence about the second prong.

The Appellate Division had considered plaintiff’s argument for abolition of the third prong, which was not raised either below or in her main brief, though the panel was not obligated to address it. But plaintiff did not get a similar indulgence a second time, regarding the second prong. “Not raised below” and “arguments cannot be made only in a footnote” are real barriers, and appellants cannot assume that appellate courts will always relax those strictures, even though courts sometimes do so. Today’s opinion reinforces that lesson.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Appendix Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Patty Shwartz Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress