Radigan v. Innisbrook Resort and Golf Club

• Decision Date: 07 June 1977
• Citation: 150 N.J.Super. 427,375 A.2d 1229
• Parties: John J. RADIGAN and Ruth Radigan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INNISBROOK RESORT AND GOLF CLUB, Defendant-Respondent and Cross-Appellant, and Texize Chemicals, Inc., a/k/a Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., and Intex, aSouth Carolina corporation doing business in New Jersey, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 427

150 N.J.Super. 427

375 A.2d 1229

John J. RADIGAN and Ruth Radigan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INNISBROOK RESORT AND GOLF CLUB, Defendant-Respondent and Cross-Appellant and Texize Chemicals, Inc., a/k/a Morton-Norwich Products, Inc. and Intex, aSouth Carolina corporation doing

business in New Jersey, Defendants-Respondents.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued March 15, 1977.

Decided June 7, 1977.

Philip G. Auerbach, Red Bank, for appellants Radigan (Auerbach, Rudnick & Waldman, Red Bank, attorneys).

George R. Hardin, Newark, for defendant-respondent and cross-appellant Innisbrook Resort and Golf Club (Conway, Reiseman, Michals, Wahl, Bumgardner & Hurley, Newark, attorneys).

Thomas T. Chappell, Jersey City, for respondent Texize Chemicals, Inc. (Lamb, Hutchinson, Chappell Ryan & Hartung, Jersey City, attorneys; Mary B. Rogers, Jersey City, on the brief).

Before Judges MATTHEWS, SEIDMAN and HORN.

PER CURIAM.

We granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal, primarily to consider the propriety of the conditioned order, entered in the Law Division, bifurcating this personal injury, negligence case and directing that the liability issue should be tried in Florida (if the court there should accept jurisdiction) and the damage issue tried here.

While a guest at the Innisbrook Resort and Golf Club in Florida, plaintiff John Radigan slipped and fell on a waxed floor, sustaining a severe injury. He instituted an action in New Jersey against the resort corporation, and also joined as defendant the manufacturer of the wax used on the floor, a South Carolina corporation. His wife also sued per quod. Both defendants were served under our "long arm" rule. R. 4:4-4. Innisbrook moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming lack of jurisdiction. (We note that proper procedure would dictate a motion to set aside service of process.) The trial judge, in a written opinion reported at 142 N.J.Super. 419, 361 A.2d 610 (Law Div. 1976), held that the operator of the Florida resort had sufficient contact in this State to support the service of process. He ruled further, however, that New Jersey was an inconvenient forum for trying the liability issue, but not the damages issue. Accordingly, he bifurcated the two issues as noted earlier, with the liability issue to be tried in Florida and the damages issue here.

Plaintiffs appeal that portion of the order pertaining to the liability issue. The argument advanced is that the trial judge erred in requiring the issue of liability to be tried in Florida, and misapplied the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Innisbrook cross-appeals, arguing that the judge had authority to direct the interstate bifurcation but erred in finding sufficient contact in this State to assert jurisdiction over Innisbrook. Though not an appellant, Texize argues that, upon a finding of forum non conveniens, the sole remedy is a dismissal of the action, and that the trial judge lacked power to order a bifurcation.

First, we turn to the cross-appeal. We are satisfied that, on the facts here present, Innisbrook had sufficient contact with this State so as to support the "long arm" service of process. The Florida resort not only advertised in publications which circulated in New Jersey, it also maintained direct communication with former guests residing in this State. Although such contacts may not have been as extensive as those in Schaffer v. Granit Hotel, Inc., 110 N.J.Super. 1, 264 A.2d 240 (App.Div.1970), and Oliff v. Kiamesha Concord, Inc., 106 N.J.Super. 121, 124, 254 A.2d 330 (Law Div.1969), we find they were enough so as not to offend "traditional notions of fair play...