Mayer v. Once Upon a Rose, Inc.
429 N.J. Super. 365, 2013 WL 331341, 58 A.3d 1221 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur without presenting expert testimony if the inference of negligence is within the common knowledge of the jury. A defendant's mere suggestion of an alternative cause, without supporting evidence, is insufficient to defeat this inference at the directed verdict stage.
Facts:
- Martin Mayer, a caterer, and Samuel Grunwald, a florist for Once Upon a Rose, Inc., were both working at an engagement party at a synagogue.
- Once Upon a Rose, Inc. owned several glass vases that had been used between ten and thirty times prior to the event.
- The owner of the company, Mrs. Grunwald, testified that she had inspected the vases for chips and cracks on the day of the party and found none.
- Mayer observed Grunwald carrying a large, square glass vase filled with water and flowers with outstretched arms.
- Mayer perceived that Grunwald was applying pressure with the palms of his hands to the sides of the vase.
- Believing Grunwald might hurt himself, Mayer approached to assist him.
- As Mayer placed his hands under the vase to provide support, it shattered, causing severe injuries to Mayer's hands.
Procedural Posture:
- Martin Mayer filed a negligence lawsuit against Samuel Grunwald and Once Upon a Rose, Inc. in the trial court.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendants moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court judge granted the defendants' motion, concluding that the plaintiff required expert testimony to support his claim.
- The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the case.
- Mayer, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur require a plaintiff to present expert testimony to prove negligence when the alleged cause of injury, such as a glass vase shattering under pressure, is a matter of common knowledge?
Opinions:
Majority - Sabatino, J.A.D.
No. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not require expert testimony when the potential negligence falls within the jury's common knowledge. The court reasoned that jurors, based on common experience, do not need an expert to understand that applying excessive pressure to a glass object can cause it to shatter. Citing precedent from Jerista v. Murray, the court held that expert testimony is only mandated when the inference of negligence falls outside the common knowledge of the factfinder. Here, the three elements of res ipsa loquitur were sufficiently established for the case to proceed to a jury: (1) the shattering of the vase ordinarily bespeaks negligence, (2) the vase was in the defendants' exclusive control, and (3) the plaintiff was not at fault. The theoretical possibility of a product defect, without any supporting evidence, was insufficient to destroy the reasonable inference of negligence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the vitality of the 'common knowledge' exception for expert testimony in res ipsa loquitur cases. It lowers the evidentiary barrier for plaintiffs in situations where an accident 'speaks for itself' but the instrumentality of harm might seem technically complex. The ruling clarifies that defendants cannot easily obtain a directed verdict by merely speculating about other potential causes, such as a latent product defect, without providing countervailing proof. This precedent strengthens a plaintiff's ability to reach a jury in common-sense negligence scenarios without incurring the significant expense of a liability expert.
Unlock the full brief for Mayer v. Once Upon a Rose, Inc.