Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Mendola

Decision Date24 July 2012
Citation48 A.3d 366,427 N.J.Super. 226
PartiesFORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a Jaguar Credit, Plaintiff, v. Patricia MENDOLA, Defendant/Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (improperly pled as Jaguar Cars, Inc.), Ray Catena Jaguar of Edison, and Modern Auto Body Of South Orange, Inc., Third–Party Defendants–Respondents, and Madison Jaguar, Main Auto Sales, Inc., and Bob Orozco, Third–Party Defendants.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Nabil N. Kassem argued the cause for appellant (Kassem & Camejo, L.L.C., attorneys; Mr. Kassem, on the brief).

James S. Dobis, Livingston, argued the cause for respondents Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC and Ray Catena Jaguar of Edison (Dobis, Russell & Peterson, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Dobis, on the brief).

John S. Fetten argued the cause for respondent Modern Auto Body of South Orange, Inc. (Montgomery, Chapin & Fetten, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Fetten, of counsel; Gary Ahladianakis, Bridgewater, on the brief).

Before Judges SABATINO, ASHRAFI and FASCIALE.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

ASHRAFI, J.A.D.

The precise and limited issue we decide is whether a claimant must present expert testimony to support her causes of action against several defendants in the automotive business for damages sustained when the engine of her leased automobile seized. Third-party plaintiff Patricia Mendola appeals from orders granting summaryjudgment to third-party defendants because she did not produce a report of an expert witness by the close of discovery. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

I.

Viewed most favorably to appellant Mendola, see R. 4:46–2(c); Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540, 666 A.2d 146 (1995), the evidence presented in the summary judgment record establishes the following facts.

Mendola leased a 2005 Jaguar S–Type from third-party defendant Ray Catena Jaguar of Edison on July 25, 2005. The three-year lease agreement required that she make payments of $765 per month to plaintiff Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC, which was operating as Jaguar Credit in this transaction.

In January 2007, Mendola's car was in an accident that caused extensive front end damage, including to the radiator. Third-party defendant Modern Auto Body of South Orange, Inc. repaired the car over a two-month period at a cost of nearly $15,000. The car was then inspected and the repairs approved on behalf of the lessor by third-party defendant Main Auto Sales, Inc., a dealership doing business as Madison Jaguar.

In March 2007, while the car was still being repaired, a safety recall letter was issued to owners and lessees of 2005 S–Types on the letterhead of “Jaguar Cars.” 1 The recall letter pertained to specific fuel components located on the gasoline tank, and it warned that [i]f the fuel tank is fully filled with fuel or the vehicle is parked on a hill with a leak path present, the driver may notice fuel odor or fuel leakage.”

After completion and approval of the repairs related to the accident, the car was returned to Mendola on April 5, 2007. Within days, Mendola noticed that the “check engine” warning light flickered. The following weekend, Mendola drove 240 miles from Short Hills to Atlantic City and back. Either the low coolant warning light or the check engine light illuminated during the trip. Mendola stopped at a service station on the Garden State Parkway and told an attendant about the warning light. The attendant looked under the hood, and he may have added a fluid. Mendola did not see what the attendant did, and he told her nothing except that the car was “all set.” She believes he added something to the engine because he charged her $9 in addition to the cost of gasoline. After the stop at the service area, Mendola's drive to and from Atlantic City was without further incident or illumination of warning lights.

Several days after the Atlantic City trip and about eleven days after the car was returned to her, Mendola saw the dashboard backlight dimming and smoke coming from under the hood. She stopped on the side of the road. The car was towed to Modern Auto Body, where it was determined that the engine had seized.

Subsequently, the car was towed to Madison Jaguar. On April 16, 2007, Madison Jaguar's mechanic noted in a service report that overheating had caused severe engine damage. The service report also stated: “Non Jaguar coolant was found in radiator. Coolant and oil mixed. Needs engine.” A number of “diagnostic trouble codes” were listed in the report: “STO red indicating malfunction warning lamp did illuminate ... engine coolant temperature high ... intake air temperature circuit low input ... thermostat performance ... engine oil temperature circuit high input.”

Bob Orozco, the service manager at Madison Jaguar, told Mendola that she was responsible for the engine seizure because of improper operation and maintenance of the car, and that Madison Jaguar would not repair the engine without charging her the full cost. The odometer reading on the service report indicated the car had been driven 17,959 miles.

Mendola and the third-party defendants did not come to an agreement as to responsibility for repairing the engine. In November 2007, Mendola stopped making lease payments, and the car was later repossessed by the lessor. In April 2009, Ford Motor Credit Company sued Mendola for breach of the lease agreement, demanding a total of more than $23,000 as the balance due under the terms of the lease. In her answer to the complaint, Mendola asserted a counterclaim against Ford Motor Credit Company and third-party claims against the other parties.2 Mendola alleged breach of unspecified express and implied warranties, negligent repair, negligent inspection, and other causes of action that are not at issue on this appeal.

At the conclusion of the discovery period, no party had produced an expert report. Those third-party defendants that remained in the case moved for summary judgment based on the lack of an expert report supporting Mendola's claims.3 Mendola argued that third-party defendants had the initial burden of producing an expert witness and report because their assertion that she caused the engine failure was an affirmative defense.

By oral decision and orders dated April 15, 2011, the trial court dismissed Mendola's third-party complaint against all remaining third-party defendants, concluding that her claims were premised on a finding of product defect and required an expert witness to explain the defect and the cause of the engine failure.

II.

Mendola contends the trial court erroneously shifted the burden of proof to her to disprove the affirmative defense of the third-party defendants and it mistakenly required expert evidence from her to prove that a defect caused the engine to seize. Since plaintiff challenges the trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from establishedfacts,” our standard of review is plenary. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378, 658 A.2d 1230 (1995).

“In general, expert testimony is required when ‘a subject is so esoteric that jurors of common judgment and experience cannot form a valid conclusion.’ Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 450, 625 A.2d 1110 (1993) (quoting Wyatt ex rel. Caldwell v. Wyatt, 217 N.J.Super. 580, 591, 526 A.2d 719 (App.Div.1987)); accord Butler v. Acme Mkts., Inc., 89 N.J. 270, 283, 445 A.2d 1141 (1982); see N.J.R.E. 702. When the proofs involve a defect in a complex instrumentality, an expert is frequently required to assist the jury in understanding the mechanical intricacies and weighing competing theories of causation. Lauder v. Teaneck Volunteer Ambulance Corps, 368 N.J.Super. 320, 330–31, 845 A.2d 1271 (App.Div.2004) (in product liability case, expert was required to prove what caused gurney to collapse); Gore v. Otis Elevator Co., 335 N.J.Super. 296, 302–04, 762 A.2d 292 (App.Div.2000) (in negligence case, expert was required to prove improper maintenance caused an elevator door to malfunction); Rocco v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 330 N.J.Super. 320, 341, 749 A.2d 868 (App.Div.2000) (in product liability case, expert was required to prove injury was caused by defective design of train door).

The precise question of law in this case is whether Mendola or the third-party defendants had the initial burden of producing expert evidence to support the claims or defenses asserted. The answer to that question depends on the nature of each claim or defense.

A.

To establish a prima facie case of negligent repair or inspection under the circumstances of this case, Mendola needed to produce expert evidence that would allow a jury to determine whether defendants Modern Auto Body and Madison Jaguar performed their functions negligently and whether that negligence caused the engine to seize. See Gore, supra, 335 N.J.Super. at 303, 762 A.2d 292.

In her pleading and other submissions, Mendola relied on the fact that the car became inoperable less than two weeks after it was repaired by Modern Auto Body and inspected by Madison Jaguar. Especially because a complex instrumentality is involved, the temporal proximity of the engine seizure to the repair and inspection work is insufficient by itself to prove causation, and consequently negligence. Other potential causes of the engine seizure also existed and were not negated.

The Supreme Court remarked many years ago: “A motor vehicle is not a simple uncomplicated instrumentality. Its parts require periodic maintenance, minor adjustments and occasional major repairs or replacements.” Scanlon v. Gen. Motors Corp., 65 N.J. 582, 599, 326 A.2d 673 (1974). Since Scanlon, the automobile has increased in mechanical and electronic complexity, while the public's familiarity with automotive mechanics has diminished. Compare Cintrone v. Hertz Truck Leasing & Rental Srvc., 45 N.J. 434, 459, 212 ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Maison v. NJ Transit Corp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • July 17, 2019
    ...absence [was] not fatal." Id. at 283, 445 A.2d 1141.Conversely, we required a liability expert in Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Mendola, 427 N.J. Super. 226, 239, 48 A.3d 366 (App. Div. 2012). There, a lessee took her car to a shop for inspection and repair, yet the car's engine seized less than......
  • Mendez v. Shah
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • June 27, 2014
    ...However, “[p]roof of causation must still be shown in a case based on breach of an express warranty”. Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC v. Mendola, 427 N.J.Super. 226, 48 A.3d 366, 375 (2012) (citing Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc., 65 N.J. 336, 343, 322 A.2d 440 (1974)). Plaintiff responds ge......
  • Mendez v. Shah
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • June 27, 2014
    ...must still be shown in a case based on breach of an express warranty”. Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC v. Mendola, 427 N.J.Super. 226, 48 A.3d 366, 375 (2012) (citing Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc., 65 N.J. 336, 343, 322 A.2d 440 (1974) ). Plaintiff responds generally that Medtronic provide......
  • Mendez v. Shah, Civil Action No. 13-1585
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • June 27, 2014
    ..."[p]roof of causation must still be shown in a case based on breach of an express warranty". Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC v. Mendola, 48 A.3d 366, 375 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2012) (citing Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc., 65 N.J. 336, 343, 322 A.2d 440 (1974)). Plaintiff responds generally that M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT