Premises & Retail Liability

We obtained a defense verdict in a slip and fall case which allegedly occurred in a New York supermarket. The plaintiff, a supermarket employee, claimed that he slipped and fell on water from a floor washing machine being used to clean the floors. During investigation of the claim, we discovered that the plaintiff slipped and fell on water from frozen food that he was unpacking. At trial, we successfully argued to preclude the plaintiff’s expert from testifying that the floor washing machine was leaking water in that this expert never inspected the floor washing machine. As the plaintiff never produced witnesses of the accident or photographs of the accident location, the jury rendered a defense verdict in 26 minutes.

We secured a unanimous defense verdict in a premises liability case where an intoxicated social guest fell down stairs at the defendant’s home. As the plaintiff supplied her own alcohol and was dutifully cared for by the defendants after her intoxication, the jury found for our client.

We obtained a defense verdict in a premises liability case where the plaintiff alleged that she tripped and fell on the defendant’s row home stairs outside the property. After less than an hour of deliberations, the jury found negligence, but no causation for the plaintiff’s injuries.

We obtained a defense verdict following a 10-day jury trial on behalf of a national home improvement company and garden center, where the plaintiff’s demand was over seven figures. The plaintiff, a 79-year-old female, was using a rollator (walker) to assist her walking when she fell at a garden center. Plaintiff claimed that the front wheel of her rollator struck and got caught on the raised baseplate bolts of a column, causing her to fall.  The plaintiff was taken out on a stretcher with a fractured leg that required ORIF surgery and a recommendation for future hip replacement.     The defense established—via an in-store surveillance video, forensic engineering expert and cross-examination—that it was very unlikely that the plaintiff's rollator ever came into contact with the baseplate.  Furthermore, even if  the plaintiff did contact the baseplate, it was due to her being inattentive and not as a result of any alleged negligence by the garden center. The jury returned a defense verdict after only 35 minutes of deliberation.

We won summary judgment on behalf of a retail store in a slip and fall case in Ohio. The plaintiff alleged serious injuries as a result of slipping and falling on a spill of an oil substance in the parking lot, right outside the front entrance doors. The plaintiff argued that she was pushing a shopping cart and alleged that pushing a shopping cart creates an attendant circumstance that blocked her vision. We successfully argued that the act of pushing a cart does not qualify as an attendant circumstance, as the customer has the ability to see the parking lot ahead of a grocery cart and pushing a cart was a situation the plaintiff regularly encountered. Further, the oil spill was wide in nature and darker in color than the asphalt. It was observable had the plaintiff looked and, therefore, qualified as an open and obvious condition. Summary judgment was granted on behalf of our client. 

We obtained a summary judgment on behalf of our client in a trip and fall matter where the plaintiff tripped and fell on a raised sidewalk in front of the defendant’s private residence. The plaintiff suffered significant injuries, including a displaced fracture of the shoulder and humeral head fracture, requiring a complete shoulder reverse arthroplasty. The plaintiff’s demand was $750,000. The defendants asserted that it is undisputed they did NOT perform any work, maintenance or construction to the sidewalk prior to the plaintiff's alleged fall in May 2020, thereby, creating or exacerbating a condition on the sidewalk which would have contributed to or caused the plaintiff's fall. The general rule is that a residential property owner owes no duty to keep a sidewalk abutting his property in repair. Norris v. Borough of Leonia, 160 N.J. 427, 431 (1999). While the court has created an exception to the rule of non-liability in the case of an abutting commercial property owner, as in Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, Inc., 87 N.J. 146 (1981), it has consistently declined to extend that liability rule to abutting residential and nonprofit owners. Additionally, New Jersey Courts have recognized that "[r]esidential homeowners can safely rely on the fact that they will not be liable unless they create or exacerbate a dangerous sidewalk condition…." Luchejko v. City of Hoboken, 207 N.J. 191, 210 (2011). The judge found that there were no genuine issues of material fact to support a theory of liability on behalf of the defendants and granted our motion for summary judgment.

We prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in favor of a project manager in a serious bicycle accident lawsuit. The plaintiff was thrown off his bike after striking a significant pothole in front of a building where our client performed work several years earlier. We successfully argued that the plaintiff’s alleged attempts to connect our client with the existence of the pothole were far too attenuated to be of any assistance to a jury. Following oral argument the judge agreed and granted summary judgment.

The alleged incident occurred outside of a school construction site. We received a favorable decision of a pre-answer motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint while simultaneously succeeding in defending against the plaintiff’s cross-motion seeking leave to file a late notice of claim. The plaintiff filed a summons and complaint, alleging a trip and fall over several cinderblocks located outside of a construction site. In the pre-answer motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, we argued that the plaintiff failed to comply with the New York General Municipal Law, which requires the plaintiff to satisfy several preconditions prior to commencing an action against a public corporation, including filing a notice of claim within 90 days after accrual of the claim and performance of a 50-H hearing. The plaintiff opposed and cross-moved, seeking leave to file a late notice of claim. We opposed, arguing that should the late filing of a notice of claim be granted, the defendant would incur substantial prejudice as the incident occurred over a year prior and the defendant would not be able to properly conduct the necessary pre-suit investigation, as is the intent of the preconditions prescribed by New York General Municipal Law. The judge granted our motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint and denied the plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to file a late notice of claim. 

We successfully defended an appeal of a trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of a nail salon in a slip-and-fall case. The plaintiff alleged she fell in an untreated wet area inside the salon on a rainy day. However, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence about the source of the “wet area,” or that the salon had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet area prior to the plaintiff’s fall. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the salon and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.

The plaintiff’s decedent was shot and killed while allegedly on his way home from school. We  were able to prove that the young man was a trespasser on the common area of the property where he was shot, even though his aunt was a tenant in the apartment complex. The decedent’s family claimed he was on his way to see her. Our investigation revealed that he was connected to local gangs and that, at the time of his shooting, he was wearing a ski mask (in Florida) and carrying a hand gun.

Despite dueling expert affidavits, Marshall Dennehey attorneys won summary judgment in a premises matter in the Connecticut Superior Court Middlesex Judicial District. The plaintiff claimed negligence against our client, a mattress retailer, for a hazardous and defective condition in the store. The defect alleged was a tile-carpet transition claimed to be approximately one-half of an inch in differential, as well as a “slope” in the continuing carpet that created a friction co-efficient that caused the plaintiff to fall. We submitted an affidavit from the store owner (whom the plaintiff waived deposing), an affidavit from an engineering expert, photographs from the site inspection, and a detailed memorandum of law outlining Connecticut law on constructive and actual notice. Our engineering expert had researched the history of the premises at the Town Clerk for the time prior to our client’s occupation (eight months leading up to the incident) and observed there were no claims, complaints or code infractions relative to the alleged condition. In other words, our client inherited the premises as is and, although responsible for the floor per the terms of the lease, had no reason or cause to repair anything or to take any corrective action. Our client’s affidavit attested that both he and his customers traversed over the “defect” countless times without feeling, observing, noticing or detecting anything foreseeably dangerous. Moreover, we asserted that because the plaintiff’s expert failed to bring up any mention of a government regulation, code, industry standard or custom that was deviated from with respect to the carpet-tile transition and premises, the expert’s affidavit was tantamount to no affidavit at all. The court granted our summary judgment motion and dismissed the case.

We obtained dismissal via preliminary objections of all claims asserted against a day care center in a shooting case venued in Philadelphia. The case arose from the shooting death of a student’s father. The shooter had been previously convicted of manslaughter and assault and was an employee of the day care center’s long-time food service vendor. While the decedent was dropping off his youngest child at day care, he got into an argument with the shooter, who was on the premises delivering food. The decedent subsequently drove away with his 17-year-old son in the passenger seat, and the shooter followed in his work van. A few blocks away from the day care center, the shooter pulled up alongside the decedent’s vehicle and repeatedly fired a handgun at the decedent. The decedent’s son survived the shooting. The food service vendor, its affiliated entities, the day care center and the shooter were named as defendants. The claims against the day care center included negligence per se, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent undertaking to render services, negligent infliction of emotional distress, violations of the Unfair Trade Practices & Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), negligent misrepresentation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress as to the decedent’s seventeen-year-old son who witnessed the shooting. The plaintiffs’ negligence per se claims centered on alleged violations of the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL), the Public Welfare Law (PWL) and the Pennsylvania School Code (School Code). Among other things, the plaintiffs took the position that the day care center had a duty to ensure that its service vendor’s employees did not have criminal records because those employees foreseeably came into contact with children and parents. On behalf of the day care center, we filed preliminary objections seeking dismissal of all claims asserted against it. After briefing, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted our preliminary objections. The case subsequently resolved with no contribution whatsoever from our client.

Our defense team successfully obtained an affirmance of the grant of summary judgment in a premises liability case. The plaintiff asserted he tripped and fell in our client’s supermarket and that the fall exacerbated his epilepsy. The discovery period ended without the plaintiff producing an expert opinion that causally connected the medical complaints to the fall. The plaintiff claimed that his treatment for cancer caused his inability to be timely examined and to obtain an expert opinion. After the trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to extend discovery, we moved for summary judgment on the grounds the plaintiff was required to provide an expert opinion linking his fall to his allegedly worsened epilepsy. The plaintiff filed a cross-motion for additional time. At the hearing on the motions, the judge expressed a willingness to consider further extension if the plaintiff had presented some indication that the report would be produced. But in the absence of such an indication, the judge found that fairness to the defense required that summary judgment be granted. On reconsideration, the plaintiff presented a “preliminary summary” from his doctor, which relied on the plaintiff’s wife’s statements to link the epilepsy to the plaintiff’s fall. The trial court denied reconsideration. On appeal to the Appellate Division, the court found no error in the decision of the Law Division judge. The court found that the plaintiff failed to show exceptional circumstances to justify a further extension of discovery and discounted the “preliminary summary” submitted on reconsideration as an improper attempt to expand the record and re-argue the motion.

We obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a civil jury trial in Northampton County, Pa. under COVID restrictions. In this premises liability case, the plaintiff claimed he had slipped on snow and ice on a sidewalk and suffered a comminuted tri-malleolar fracture, requiring two surgeries. At trial, Jason demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to establish that the accident occurred on the property his client maintained as power-of-attorney, or that his client breached any limited duty owed to a licensee. The socially-distanced jury returned its verdict in favor of the defense in one hour.

The defense prevailed on summary judgment for a nail salon owner against negligence and product liability claims by a plaintiff who slipped and fell off-site while still wearing pedicure slippers. The plaintiff had received a pedicure at our client’s nail salon. When she left the premises, she continued to wear the disposable pedicure slippers. The plaintiff then walked in the rain and eventually slipped and fell upon entering a retail store. The plaintiff brought general negligence and product liability claims against the nail salon’s owner. At the conclusion of discovery, the court granted our motion for summary judgment based upon the plaintiff’s admission that there was nothing wrong with the slippers and her failure to provide expert opinion as to the existence of any defect in the slippers.

We obtained an affirmance by the First District Court of Appeal of a defense verdict in a negligent security action. A chef was taking garbage outside of a restaurant when he was shot and killed. The estate sued our client, the owner of the commercial building and parking lot, as well as the defendants involved in the development, design and maintenance of the retail center. The jury returned a defense verdict in favor of all defendants. The estate then appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in excluding subsequent remedial measure evidence of the installation of lighting, signs and cameras in the parking lot after the shooting. The First District rejected those arguments, and affirmed the final judgments in favor of the defendants.

We obtained summary judgment for a national concert promoter and public entity venue owner. The plaintiff purchased outdoor lawn seats for a concert at the PNC Bank Arts Center in Holmdel, New Jersey. After the show started, it began to rain, and the plaintiff alleged the lawn area became slippery, wet and muddy. The plaintiff attempted to walk down the sloped lawn toward the stage to buy her husband a beer. While doing so, her foot got stuck in mud which formed with the rain, and she suffered a severe ankle fracture that was surgically repaired. The trial judge dismissed the case on summary judgment and found the plaintiff’s expert’s report to be unsupported. The court reasoned the plaintiff could not present a claim of liability against the operator for failing to prevent the outdoor grassed seating area from becoming wet and slippery when it rained. He also reasoned the plaintiff could not prove the property was in a dangerous condition as defined by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act.

​The defendants were two family-owned companies that grow, process and sell mushrooms. One defendant, our client, owned the property, and the other operated the business there. The plaintiff worked for an independent company that was contracted to load compost into the defendants’ mushroom beds. The plaintiff encountered a problem with the equipment used to lift the compost (the source of the problem is in dispute). A connection between components broke, and a metal pan fell on the plaintiff’s arm, crushing it. The plaintiff alleged he had previously reported the problem to the defendants. Our attorneys successfully argued that the defendant who owned the property was a “landlord out of possession” and not responsible for injuries to third parties on the premises. The plaintiff argued that his complaint to one defendant about the equipment problem was notice to both, because both companies were owned by the same family. The court ruled that the shared ownership of the companies did not impose a legal duty on a defendant that was not otherwise responsible for the property.

We obtained a per curiam affirmance in the Fourth District Court of Appeal in a suit against a campground/RV park. The suit alleged that the campground negligently maintained the campsite and failed to keep the electrical up to code, forcing an RV owner to abandon her RV at the site. The campground countersued for writ of distress to remove the unsightly vehicle from the campsite. The trial court entered judgment on the pleadings and declined to amend the complaint, finding an amendment would be futile. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s entry of final judgment in favor of the campground on the main claim as well as the counterclaim. The court also conditionally granted the campground’s motion for appellate attorney's fees and remanded the case to the trial court to rule on the validity of the unaccepted proposal for settlement.

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of a commercial tenant in a premises liability case. The plaintiff brought suit against our client, the commercial landlord and the City of Newark. The plaintiff alleged that the parties failed to maintain a condition of the sidewalk that caused a trip and fall. We moved for summary judgment for contractual indemnification, arguing that the co-defendant commercial landlord was obligated under the language of the lease to indemnify our client for the landlord’s own negligence. At oral arguments, we were able to establish that the language of the lease was clear and that it was undisputed that our client had no duty to the plaintiff. Furthermore, we were able to argue that the motion was not premature, as the co-defendant’s opposition conceded that, based on the language of the lease, we had no duty. The judge agreed with our arguments, and the court granted our motion for summary judgment and required the landlord to indemnify our client.

We were successful on a motion for summary judgment, thereby barring the application of the mode of operations in a slip and fall case where an alleged partially eaten sandwich was found in the aisle of the retailer. ​The facts indicated that the sandwich came from a fast-food sandwich shop within the premises and was dropped by an unidentified customer, who took the item to go and dropped it in the aisle before the plaintiff fell. The court ruled that the mode of operations did not apply because the aisle, which contained greeting cards and the like, and did not create an extension of the cafeteria within the retailer’s premises. Further, the court ruled there was no nexus to any self-serve component of the fast food restaurant’s business to the area in the retailer’s store proper where the accident occurred.

Obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a supermarket in a premises liability case in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff claimed that she was injured when her hand was trapped in a deli case door that was closed by an inattentive employee. She claimed that in an attempt to free her hand from the deli case, she suffered an injury to her shoulder and her neck. MRI scans after the incident did show degenerative disc disease in her neck, as well as multiple herniated discs. Her treating orthopedic surgeon attributed the injuries to the incident in question and recommended a cervical fusion. Through investigation, we learned that the plaintiff had filed a lawsuit in New York as a result of a fall in 2007. We obtained a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition from the prior lawsuit, which indicated that her treating physician in the New York case had recommended the same health care procedures that had been recommended after this incident. The jury did find the employee who closed the deli case door on the plaintiff’s hand to be negligent. The jury also found that the plaintiff was negligent in sticking her hand in the area of an open deli case and that the plaintiff’s negligence outweighed the defendant’s negligence, barring her recovery.