McDaid v. Aztec W. Condo. Ass'n

Citation234 N.J. 130,189 A.3d 321
Decision Date17 July 2018
Docket NumberA-88 September Term 2016,079325
Parties Maureen MCDAID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AZTEC WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Bergen Hydraulic Elevator, and Preferred Management, Inc., Defendants-Respondents.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

Lisa A. Lehrer argued the cause for appellant (Davis, Saperstein & Salomon, attorneys; Lisa A. Lehrer, of counsel and on the brief).

Robert J. Mormile, Fairfield, argued the cause for respondents Aztec West Condominium Association, Inc. and Preferred Management, Inc. (Farkas & Donohue, attorneys; Robert J. Mormile, of counsel, and Christine M. Jones, on the briefs).

Brian L. Calistri argued the cause for respondent Bergen Hydraulic Elevator (Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby, attorneys; Brian L. Calistri and Anthony T. Ling, Bedminster, on the briefs).

William L. Gold, West Orange, argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Association for Justice (Bendit Weinstock, attorneys; William L. Gold, of counsel and on the brief, and Eryn M. Fernandez-Ledon, on the brief).

JUSTICE ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Res ipsa loquitur is an equitable doctrine that allows, in appropriate circumstances, a permissive inference of negligence to be drawn against a party who exercises exclusive control of an instrumentality that malfunctions and causes injury to another. The rationale for the res ipsa inference is that the injury-causing occurrence ordinarily would not happen in the absence of negligence and that the party controlling the instrumentality is in the best position to explain what went wrong and why. In Jerista v. Murray, we held that the res ipsa inference applied to a supermarket's automatic door that went awry, striking and injuring a customer as she entered the store. 185 N.J. 175, 190-200, 883 A.2d 350 (2005).

In this negligence case, we must decide whether the principles enunciated in Jerista apply equally to a condominium building's elevator doors that opened and closed on plaintiff, a resident, seriously injuring her as she attempted to exit the elevator. The trial court rejected the res ipsa inference, finding that the cause of an elevator's malfunction can be unrelated to negligent maintenance and that plaintiff failed to offer proofs excluding non-fault-based causes. Based in large part on its rejection of the res ipsa inference, the court granted summary judgment to defendants. The Appellate Division affirmed.

We now hold that the dictates of Jerista apply to the facts presented here. The res ipsa inference of negligence is applicable because common experience instructs that elevator doors -- however complex their operation may be -- ordinarily should not strike a person entering or exiting an elevator in the absence of negligence. To warrant the res ipsa inference, the injured plaintiff had no obligation to exclude other possible causes that might explain the malfunctioning of the elevator doors or to show that defendants were on notice of some defect in the doors' operation. In granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, the trial court and Appellate Division erred in finding that res ipsa does not apply to malfunctioning elevator doors.

We therefore reverse the entry of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

I.
A.

Plaintiff Maureen McDaid brought a negligence action against defendants Aztec West Condominium Association for Aztec West Condominium in Hackensack (the Condominium Association); Preferred Management, Inc., the Association's management company; and Bergen Hydraulic Elevator, the elevator-maintenance provider. Howard Gartenberg served as the Condominium Association's property manager. The complaint alleged that McDaid suffered serious injuries when she was exiting the elevator and the elevator doors unexpectedly and "repeatedly" closed on her. Defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming that McDaid did not make out a prima facie case of negligence.

We rely on the factual presentation in the summary judgment record, giving McDaid -- the non-moving party -- the benefit of the most favorable evidence to support her claim, as we must at this stage in the proceedings. See R. 4:46-2; Bauer v. Nesbitt, 198 N.J. 601, 604 n.1, 969 A.2d 1122 (2009) ("In considering the merits of a motion for summary judgment, both trial and appellate courts must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party ....").

B.

McDaid, who has cerebral palsy, was a resident of the Aztec West Condominium in Hackensack. Sometime in mid to late September 2010, McDaid complained to Gartenberg that the elevator door was "closing too fast." Gartenberg communicated this information to Bergen Hydraulic's representative.1 McDaid asserts that on October 14, 2010, she entered the building's elevator and rode it to the lobby. According to McDaid, as she exited the elevator, the elevator doors closed prematurely, striking her and knocking her to the ground. She fell face forward, hitting her head on her walker. As she lay prone, the doors opened and closed on her a second time. McDaid suffered injuries to various parts of her body and required a seventeen-day stay at a rehabilitation institute where she received extensive physical therapy and other medical treatment.

The elevator doors were equipped with two safety features - - a mechanical safety edge and an electric eye. A mechanical safety edge is a bumper that causes an elevator door to retract when it makes contact with an object. An electric eye emits light beams from the elevator doors across the entrance threshold, detecting the presence of objects in its pathway. If working properly, the electric eye prevents the elevator doors from closing on a person.

Four days after the accident, a construction code official for the City of Hackensack inspected the condominium's elevator and determined that the electric eye was in need of repair. Shortly afterward, Bergen Hydraulic conducted an inspection, found that the elevator's electric eye's relay contacts were "not functioning properly," and repaired it that day.

Defendants had interlocking contractual relationships. The Condominium Association contracted with Preferred Management to maintain the common elements of the condominium property, including the mechanical equipment owned by the Association. Beginning in 1995, the Condominium Association contracted with Bergen Hydraulic to provide monthly and emergency service and maintenance to the elevator, and to repair and replace elevator door protection and photoelectric devices. Each defendant denied knowledge of any malfunction or problems with the elevator's electric eye before the accident.

McDaid provided a report from an expert in elevator repair and maintenance, who concluded that the elevator's malfunctioning electric eye caused the accident. The Condominium Association and Preferred Management submitted an expert report from a certified elevator inspector, which stated that McDaid's "failure to clear the path" of the closing elevator door "in a timely manner" was the proximate cause of her injuries. Bergen Hydraulic's expert report agreed with that assertion and stated that the elevator was "properly maintained" at the time of the accident.

C.

At the end of the discovery period, defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that they did not have notice of a malfunctioning electric eye before the accident and therefore McDaid could not hold them liable for negligently causing her injuries.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed McDaid's complaint. The court rejected the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, finding that the malfunctioning of elevator doors is not an occurrence that "ordinarily bespeaks negligence." More specifically, the court stated that McDaid "did not refute the contention that the electric eye, being a mechanical device, is subject to failure from time to time totally unrelated to negligence." Relying on Gore v. Otis Elevator Co., 335 N.J. Super. 296, 302-03, 762 A.2d 292 (App. Div. 2000), the court held that McDaid failed "to bring forth affirmative evidence that tends to exclude other causes" for the malfunctioning of the elevator.

The court accepted that the parties had a legitimate dispute about whether the electric eye malfunctioned, causing the elevator doors to close on McDaid. The court, however, concluded that McDaid failed to establish that defendants had actual or constructive notice of the malfunctioning electric eye. Additionally, the trial court struck, as a net opinion, the part of McDaid's expert report that stated that Bergen Hydraulic should have recommended that the protection system in the condominium's elevator "be replaced with a new upgraded safer reopening device."

For those reasons, the court determined that McDaid fell short of making out a prima facie case of negligence.2

D.

In an unreported opinion, the Appellate Division affirmed, "substantially for the reasons expressed by [the trial court]." The panel agreed with the trial court that res ipsa loquitur did not apply, relying on Gore, 335 N.J. Super. at 296, 762 A.2d 292, a case in which the Appellate Division "declined to apply the [res ipsa] doctrine against an elevator company in an action for negligent maintenance of elevator doors." The panel also agreed that part of McDaid's expert report, referring to the failure to upgrade the elevator's protection system, constituted a net opinion. The panel ultimately held that defendants' lack of "actual or constructive notice of the electric eye malfunction ... [was] fatal to [McDaid's] claims of premises liability."

We granted McDaid's petition for certification. 230 N.J. 528, 170 A.3d 316 (2017). We also granted the motion of the New Jersey Association for Justice (NJAJ) to participate as amicus curiae.

II.
A.

McDaid argues that the Condominium Association, which exercised control over the condominium property, owed a non-delegable duty to ensure the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. J.R.-R. (In re G.R.-R.)
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • September 27, 2021
    ...for ‘the thing speaks for itself,’ is a longstanding evidentiary rule grounded in principles of equity ...." McDaid v. Aztec W. Condo. Ass'n, 234 N.J. 130, 142, 189 A.3d 321 (2018) (quoting Jerista v. Murray, 185 N.J. 175, 191, 883 A.2d 350 (2005) ). "The res ipsa doctrine allows a factfind......
  • Pannucci v. Edgewood Park Senior Hous. Phase 1, LLC
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • November 30, 2020
    ...doctrine permits a jury to infer a defendant's negligence, enabling a plaintiff to make a prima facie case. McDaid v. Aztec W. Condo. Ass'n, 234 N.J. 130, 142–43, 189 A.3d 321 (2018). To employ the doctrine, a personal-injury plaintiff must show three things: first, the accident was one tha......
  • Kuhar v. Petzl Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • April 13, 2022
    ... ... Davis , 397 F.3d 173, ... 179 (3d Cir. 2005); see also McDaid v. Aztec W. Condo ... Ass'n. , 189 A.3d 321, 331 (N.J. 2018) ... ...
  • N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. J.R.-R.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • September 27, 2021
    ...and (c) there is no indication in the circumstances that the injury was the result of the plaintiff's own voluntary act or neglect." Id. at 142-43 (quoting Jerista, 185 N.J. at 192). Like res under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a)(2), if the injury is one that ordinarily would not occur in the absence ......
  • 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