Source: https://reardonanderson.wordpress.com/tag/thomas-reardon/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:28:47+00:00

Document:
On October 28, 2005, the plaintiff was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle accident. The defendant Zimmer was stopped behind the plaintiff. The defendant DeRosa, driving a van, struck the rear of the Zimmer, pushing Zimmer’s vehicle into the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle. The police responded and the plaintiff advised that she was OK and drove away from the scene. Later, the plaintiff felt sore and went to the emergency room.
About four months after the accident, the plaintiff began treatment with a chiropractor for back and neck pain. The plaintiff was referred to Dr. Kaul, a specialist in interventional pain and minimally invasive spine surgery. Dr. Kaul found the plaintiff had bilateral L5-S1 radiculopathy and tears in discs at L4-5 and L5-S1. The plaintiff underwent lumbar steroid injections. Eventually, Dr. Kaul recommended spinal fusion therapy; however, the plaintiff declined.
At trial, the plaintiff testified that she did not return to work as a seamstress because of pain and inability to perform her job functions.
The defense produced an orthopedic surgeon who testified that the plaintiff was 5’5” and weighed over 300 lbs. He found no objective evidence of injuries from the accident and that the plaintiff’s back problems were common in overweight individuals. A radiologist testified that he had reviewed the MRI films and found they showed no evidence of herniated discs or annular tears, but did show age related disc degeneration.
On June 24, 2007, the Social Security Administration (SSA) issued a four-page Notice of Award finding that the plaintiff became disabled on October 28, 2005. Prior to trial, defense counsel filed an in limine motion seeking to preclude the plaintiff from introducing any evidence or testimony pertaining to the SSA disability determination. The plaintiff argued that the determination creates a rebuttable presumption that the plaintiff was disabled and unable to work as a consequence of the accident. The plaintiff also argued they should be able to cross-examine the defendant’s orthopedic expert with the SSA findings. The trial court precluded the use of the SSA determination.
It should be noted that during closing arguments, defense counsel stressed that there was no medical testimony that the plaintiff was unable to work. Plaintiff’s counsel objected and the court found the defense counsel had “opened the door.” The jury was then advised that the plaintiff was determined to be disabled by SSA. The jury returned a unanimous verdict finding the plaintiff did not sustain an injury as a proximate result of the accident of October 28, 2005.
On appeal, the court first observed that they were not faced with the concepts of res judicata or collateral estoppel since the defendant was neither a party nor in privity with a party to the proceedings before the SSA.
In rendering its decision, the court looked to Phillips v. Erie Lackawanna RR Co., 107 N.J. Super. 590 (App. Div. 1969), wherein the Appellate Division held the factual conclusions of the hearing examiner of the Public Utility Commission respecting the hazards posed by a particular grade crossing and the Board’s decision directing installation of protective lights and bells was hearsay and not admissible. The Phillips’ court noted that it is “clearly the intent of the drafters not to allow in evidence conclusionary material resulting from official investigations embodied in statements or reports of the official or agency involved.” The court also noted that under various Federal Districts and Circuits, the consensus is to favor the view that legal conclusions are not admissible as findings of fact under the Rule.
The Appellate Court also noted that the cornerstone of the public records exception is trustworthiness. In this case, a court must be cautious about the use of an administrative determination that may be predicated upon a different, more lenient standard. Thus the court found that NJRE 803(c)(8) does not authorize the admission of an SSA Determination of Disability as a hearsay exception.
Lastly, the court highlighted that the SSA Disability Determination is of dubious probative value in a personal injury action. The lack of a meaningful adversarial process with respect to the cause, existence and extent of the plaintiff’s alleged disability renders the SSA conclusions on that issue unreliable. Conversely, the court noted that the defendant may suffer real and significant prejudice from the admission of the SSA Disability Determination. The jury may inappropriately give weight, based on the fact that SSA is a government agency, to its conclusions that the plaintiff suffered a disability.
At issue in Wilkey v. Mayer was a motor vehicle accident involving the defendant striking the plaintiff as she was crossing a street with her car. In order to prove her case, plaintiff retained the services of an accident reconstruction expert. At the time of trial, plaintiff sought to offer this expert to explain to the jury how the accident happened. In his report, and in his testimony, the expert opined that the defendant had an unobstructed view of the plaintiff for 300 feet before impact. He further opined that if the defendant had seen the plaintiff at a distance of 300 feet, she would have had sufficient time to apply her brakes and avoid striking the plaintiff.
Prior to offering this testimony to the jury, a Rule 104 hearing was held. The defendant objected to the expert’s conclusions on the basis of them being net opinions. Specifically, the defendant contended that the expert had not considered all evidence produced in discovery which would challenge his ultimate opinions.
During jury deliberations a question regarding proximate cause arose. The parties agreed to give the jury the Model Charge for proximate cause. Subsequently, the jury returned a unanimous verdict that the defendant was negligent and awarded $600,000 in damages. The defendant than appealed.
In vacating the liability finding, the court found that the trial court committed error by permitting the expert to express an opinion with regard to proximate cause. This was further exacerbated by the court refusing to allow the defendant to cross examine the expert on whether the plaintiff’s actions could be a proximate cause of the accident.
Due to this error, the Appellate Division reserved and remanded the matter for a new trial on liability. The damage award was not disturbed as the defendant did not challenge same in its appeal.
The New Jersey Appellate Division has held that an individual retained to serve as an arbitrator cannot act as a mediator and then return to the role of arbitrator.
mediation, although a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution, differs from binding arbitration…We conclude the differences in the roles of these two types of dispute resolution professionals necessitate that a mediator, who may become privy to party confidence in guiding disputants to a mediated resolution, cannot thereafter retain the appearance of a neutral fact finder necessary to conduct a binding arbitration proceeding. Consequently, absent the parties’ agreement, an arbitrator appointed under the [Uniform Arbitration Act] may not assume the role of mediator and, thereafter, resume the role of arbitrator.
Initially, the arbitrator met with both parties prior to the commencement of arbitration hearings. The parties at that point decided to engage in settlement discussions and mediation in an attempt to narrow issues for final determination. During the mediation process, the parties relied on the jointly chosen forensic accountant to offer recommendations regarding resolution of certain financial issues. If the parties accepted the recommendation, a written agreement would be prepared regarding specific issues.
Through this process, the parties were successful in resolving a number of issues. The resolution of these issues resulted in four separate “settlement” agreements which were entered into during 2009 and memorialized in writing. Once of these agreements noted that its contents had been reached “between the parties…after mediation with the assistance of the arbitrator and financial adviser.” In these agreements, the parties agreed to such issues as waiving the rights to one another’s medical practice and respective claims for equitable distribution. After the four agreements were reached by the parties, but before specific terms were formalized, plaintiff hired co-counsel to assist in finalizing a Property Settlement Agreement. In doing so, co-counsel requested a meeting with the forensic accountant to review his findings which served as the underpinnings of the parties’ previous agreements relating to the property settlement. The defendant objected, claiming that all of these matters were settled and disclosure was not necessary. This in turn resulted in a flurry of letters to the accountant and arbitrator.
The arbitrator denied plaintiff’s request to meet with the forensic accountant and/or review his records. At this point, plaintiff’s original counsel filed an application with the Family Part to be relieved and substitute co-counsel as plaintiff’s attorney of record. Plaintiff’s new counsel then moved before the family part for an Order requiring the forensic accountant to produce all evaluations of the parties’ finances. The Family Part denied this motion stating that the parties had agreed that all financial aspects would be subject to binding arbitration. Plaintiff then filed a motion with the arbitrator seeking his recusal or alternatively requesting the production of the forensic accountant’s financial documents. In that motion, plaintiff’s counsel inferred bias by noting that the arbitrator had served both as a mediator and arbitrator throughout the proceeding. Defendant opposed plaintiff’s request and sought attorney’s fees. In rendering his decision, the arbitrator noted that “my role was to make recommendations, when requested, on the various financial issues…at no time did I assume the role of mediator. I did not participate in the discussions of the financial information.” The arbitrator subsequently rejected plaintiff’s request for releasing the financial documents she sought. Plaintiff then returned to the Family Part seeking to reverse the arbitrator’s refusal to disclose the records sought. This motion was denied by the trial court.
The parties then returned to arbitration hearings. During these proceedings, the defendant requested certain relief from child support which plaintiff objected to. The arbitration hearing was conducted and was adjourned pending additional submissions by the parties. The arbitrator rendered an award with regard to outstanding issues pertaining to the parties and on March 17, 2011, issued and order incorporating the parties’ 2009 settlement agreements, forensic accountant’s spreadsheets calculating debts and credits, the income schedules the forensic account prepared supporting the calculation of child support, and his decisions following the hearing.
Plaintiff continued to seek to have the 2009 agreements vacated along with the other arbitration orders. To do so, Plaintiff submitted to the arbitrator a certification of the defendant’s ex-fiancée which stated that the forensic accountant was biased against the plaintiff. In the certification, the ex-fiancée claimed that she had been told by the defendant that the accountant “was going to make sure that everything was taken care of…a little birdie told me [the forensic accountant] got it covered.” Additionally, the certification provided that the defendant had significantly underreported his income. The defendant opposed the application and cross-moved for attorney’s fees. The arbitrator found that the ex-fiancée was not “completely objective” and that the forensic accountant had acted in a neutral capacity throughout the proceedings. The arbitrator rejected plaintiff’s request for vacating the 2009 orders and other arbitration decisions and reserved on defendant’s fee requests. Ultimately, the arbitrator issued an award finding that the plaintiff was responsible for certain attorney fees incurred by the defendant following the last 2009 agreement.
The defendant then moved in the Family Part to confirm the arbitration award. Plaintiff cross-moved to vacate the award and all underlying agreements that were incorporated therein. The plaintiff further sought to terminate the services of the arbitrator and forensic accountant, to reopen discovery and to select a new arbitrator and expert. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to confirm the award and denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion. The court did however deny defendant’s request for enforcing the arbitrator’s award allocating attorney’s fees. Plaintiff then appealed the trial court’s decision.
In rendering its decision, the Appellate Division noted that neither party to the action contested the consensual agreement to submit all financial disputes to binding arbitration. In fact, the court found that as arbitration is a “creature of contract”, it is permissible for parties to an action to select which aspects of the action shall be arbitrated. The court further noted that the Uniform Arbitration Act allows parties to define arbitration proceedings and the methods in which they are to be conducted.
The court emphasized that, “when binding arbitration is contracted for by litigants, the judiciary’s role to determine the substantive matter subject to the arbitration ends. Arbitration should spell litigation’s conclusion, rather than it’s beginning.” Once binding arbitration is selected, the court’s powers are generally limited to: enforcing orders or subpoenas issued by the arbitrator, confirming an arbitration award, correcting or modifying an award and in very limited circumstances, vacating an award. Further, the court noted that an arbitration award can only be vacated upon proof that the award was procured through corruption, fraud or undue means, partiality of the arbitrator which results in prejudicing the rights of a party to the arbitration proceedings, the arbitrator refusing to postpone a hearing or refusing to consider evidence of material to the controversy which prejudices the rights of the party, and the arbitrator exceeding his powers.
Ultimately, in this case, the court found that the arbitrator engaged in mediation in seeking to obtain settlement agreements reached in 2009. Further, the court found that parties entered into subsequent agreements between arbitration hearings. Ultimately, the court found those “settlement” agreements entered into by the parties enforceable. However, those orders/decisions entered by the arbitrator after he engaged the parties as a mediator were not enforceable.
Accordingly, the court found that the 2009 agreements and other agreements reached thereafter by the parties were enforceable. However, the court found that decisions rendered by the arbitrator after he assumed the role of the mediator were not enforceable and were vacated. Additionally, the court ordered the new arbitrator to request for documents in light of the agreement to arbitrate. The court, in turn, vacated those orders of the arbitrator and remanded the case for new arbitration proceedings before a new arbitrator.
This case involves Willingboro Mall, Ltd. (Willingboro), the owner of the Willingboro Mall, selling its property to 240/242 Franklin Avenue LLC (Franklin) in February 2005. To secure part of Franklin’s obligations, the parties executed a promissory note and mortgage on the property. Willingboro subsequently filed a mortgage foreclosure action. Franklin denied that it defaulted on the note. The court subsequently referred this matter to nonbinding mediation.
On November 6, 2007, a retired Superior Court Judge conducted the mediation. Willingboro’s manager and attorney appeared on behalf of the Willingboro. The mediation was held at the offices of Franklin’s attorney. The mediator met privately with each side. At some point, Franklin offered $100,000 to Willingboro in exchange for settlement of all claims and for a discharge of the mortgage. On behalf of Willingboro, the manager orally accepted the offer in the presence of the mediator who presented the terms of the proposed settlement. The Manager also affirmed that he gave his attorney authority to enter into the settlement. The terms of the settlement were not reduced to writing before the conclusion of the mediation.
On November 9th, Franklin forwarded to the court and Willingboro a letter announcing that the case had been “successfully settled.” The letter also set forth the terms of the settlement. On November 20th, Franklin’s attorney sent a separate letter to Willingboro stating he held the $100,000 in his attorney trust account to fund the settlement. On November 30th, Willingboro’s attorney told Franklin’s attorney that Willingboro rejected the settlement terms.
In December, Franklin filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Franklin attached certifications from its attorney and the mediator that revealed communications made between the parties during the mediation. The mediator averred in his Certification that the parties voluntarily entered into a binding settlement agreement and that the settlement terms were accurately memorialized in Franklin’s letter to the court.
During discovery taken in connection with the motion to enforce, five witnesses were deposed including the mediator, Willingboro’s manager and Willingboro’s attorney. After the close of discovery, the Honorable Michael J. Hogan conducted a four day evidentiary hearing. Judge Hogan found that a binding settlement agreement was reached as a result of the court directed mediation. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s enforcement of the settlement agreement.
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted Willingboro’s petition for certification. Willingboro raised two issues: 1) Whether R.1:40-4 (i) requires a settlement agreement reached at mediation to be reduced to writing and signed at the time of mediation and 2) whether Willingboro waived the mediation communication privilege.
R. 1:40-4(i) states “a settlement reached at mediation is not enforceable unless it is reduced to writing at the time of the mediation signed by the parties.” In this case, the writing memorializing the terms of the settlement was forwarded by Franklin after the mediation and never signed by Willingboro. Accordingly, Willingboro argued that the purported settlement should not be enforced. Franklin countered by noting that nothing in R. 1:40-4(i) requires the written settlement agreement resulting from the mediation be created or tendered on the actual day of the mediation. Willingboro also argued that it did not waive the mediation communication privilege by presenting evidence in opposition to the motion to enforce the oral agreement. Willingboro noted that the mediation communication privilege had “already been destroyed by Franklin’s disclosures to the court through the mediator certification.” Thus, Willingboro’s response was simply a defensive measure and should not have been taken as a waiver.
The Supreme Court noted that R. 1:40-4(d) provides: “Unless the participants in a mediation agree otherwise or to the extent disclosure is permitted by this rule, no party, mediator or other participant in the mediation may disclose any mediation communication to anyone who is not a participant in the mediation.” The purpose of the rule is that without assurance of confidentiality, participants will be unwilling to enter into candid and unrestrained communication. In addition, the New Jersey Mediation Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:23C-1 et. seq.) and the Rules of Evidence (N.J.R.E. 519) confer a privilege on mediation communications.
The Court noted that the second exception to the mediation communication privilege is waiver. Pursuant to statute and case law, the waiver must be express. The Court concluded that the Certifications filed by Franklin’s attorney and the mediator in support of Franklin’s motion to enforce the oral agreement disclosed privilege mediation communications. Despite the fact that Franklin violated the mediation communication privilege, Willingboro did not timely move to strike or suppress the disclosure of the mediation communications. Instead, Willingboro proceeded to litigate whether it had in fact entered into a binding oral settlement agreement. Willingboro breached the mediation communication privilege by appending to its opposition papers the manager’s Certification. Thus, Willingboro expressly waived the mediation communication privilege in responding to the motion.
Despite a developer’s contractual responsibility for maintenance and repair of an area outside a commercial condominium unit, the owner of that unit owes a duty of care to the employee of an independent contractor with regard to a hazardous condition in that same location, according to the Appellate Division’s published decision in Nielsen v. Wal-Mart Store #2171 (A-2790-11T1). The Court balanced a number of factors in concluding that the lack of ownership or control of the area did not absolve Wal-Mart of liability, including the relationship of the parties, the attendant risks, the nature of the risks and ultimately, fairness to the innocent plaintiff.
The plaintiff, William Nielsen, was injured when he slipped and fell in a shopping plaza in Princeton while in the course of his employment with Ecolab, Inc., which had been hired by Wal-Mart to exterminate pests. He had been instructed by the store to access various entrances from the exterior of the unit owned by Wal-Mart. The perimeter of the store, where plaintiff fell, was owned by the developer, who, pursuant to the master deed, agreed to “supervise, administer, operate, manage, insure, repair, replace and maintain” the common elements. The plaintiff subsequently filed suit against Wal-Mart, and unsuccessfully attempted to amend the complaint to name the developer as a defendant more than two years after the action’s accrual, at which point the statute of limitations had run. At trial, a jury found Wal-Mart 80 percent negligent and awarded plaintiff damages of $400,000. Wal-Mart’s motion for a new trial was denied.
On appeal, Wal-Mart argued that the trial court erred in failing to distinguish between the duty owed by a business owner on and off its premises. The Appellate Division stated that case law supports the imposition of liability beyond the boundaries of a commercial land occupier’s property (i.e. to abutting sidewalks and adjacent public roadways). Likewise, while a lack of ownership or control of an area has relevance in determining the existence of a duty of care, the Court noted it is not dispositive. The Court also indicated that the private contractual arrangement of duties between a commercial unit owner and developer is simply another factor to be considered in the analysis.
Ultimately, the Court affirmed the trial judge’s decision based on foreseeability and fairness grounds. Wal-Mart directed the plaintiff to use the unit’s perimeter to perform extermination work, and as such, was aware that its invitees and passersby might foreseeably traverse the area outside the unit. The Court also suggested that, despite no contractual obligation to maintain an area, a business owner, such as Wal-Mart, would be encouraged to alert the responsible entity of a hazardous condition if a duty of care was imposed on that unit owner.
On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs Valerie and James Herrick were allegedly struck by a motor vehicle and injured while walking across a valet service road adjacent to the Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City, NJ. At the time of the incident, the motor vehicle, owned by Thomas Megonigle, was being operated by the defendant Adrian Wilson, an employee at defendant Trump Taj Mahal Casino. The event was captured on security cameras owned by the Taj Mahal.
The plaintiff served supplemental interrogatories and a Notice to Produce requesting that the videotape of the incident be produced. The defendants refused to produce the videotape. The plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the answer and suppress the defenses of the defendant for failing to provide the video footage. In opposition to the motion, the defendants asserted that the plaintiffs’ review of the videotape prior to the taking of their depositions would preclude the defendants from obtaining the plaintiffs’ independent recollection of the accident.
The plaintiffs countered that New Jersey Form C Uniform Interrogatories requires each defendant in a personal injury case to attach copies of any photographs and videotapes relative to the subject matter of the complaint. Further, the Court Rules require that “every question propounded by a uniform interrogatory must be answered unless the court has otherwise ordered.” The court found that the videotape was clearly discoverable pursuant to R. 4:10-2. The defendants did not dispute the videotape was relevant but sought to postpone production of the tape based on the case of Jenkins v. Rainner, 69 N.J. 50 (1976). Jenkins concerned a case of post-accident surveillance of the plaintiff taken two years after the incident and after the plaintiff was deposed. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that video surveillance had to be produced by the defendant but only after the plaintiff was deposed again.
In Herrick, the court found that holding in Jenkins was not controlling. The court noted a fundamental difference between video surveillance prepared during the course of litigation for the purpose of impeachment and routine surveillance conducted in the normal course of business. The court also noted that if the defendant were permitted to withhold the video, it would open up a floodgate of motion practice as parties would routinely refuse to produce all evidence that would be more beneficial to produce after depositions are conducted.
Lastly, the court did find some merit to the defendant’s argument that if the video was produced prior to plaintiff’s deposition, then the plaintiff’s unfettered independent recollection would be forever tainted. However, the court noted the same argument could be advanced with respect to a limitless list of frequently produced discovery including police reports, witness statements, party admissions, e-mails, etc. The court then ordered that the videotape be produced prior to the deposition.
NJ Appellate Division Holds Commercial Tenant In Shopping Center Is Not Responsible To Maintain An Area In the Parking Lot In Which the Landlord Is Contractually Obligated To Maintain.
The Appellate Division has held in Kandrac v. Marrazzo’s Market at Robbinsville (A-6081-10T3) that a commercial tenant in a multi-tenant shopping center does not owe a duty to its patrons to maintain an area of the parking lot that the landlord is contractually obligated to maintain. The Court found that while the determination as to whether a duty exists remains a fact-sensitive inquiry, commercial tenants not in exclusive occupancy of a shopping center have no common law duty to maintain a parking lot shared with other tenants.
In this case, the plaintiff, Arlene Kandrac, tripped and fell in the parking lot at The Shoppes at Foxmoor, a 36-store shopping center owned by Foxmoor Associates. The fall occurred after she left defendant Marrazzo’s store and walked across the roadway separating the shops from the parking area. She subsequently filed suit against the landowner and the store, alleging their negligence resulted in her injuries.
The Site Manager for the landlord testified that his responsibilities included “overseeing the maintenance of the shopping center, cleaning and maintenance.” It was his understanding that the tenant did not have any responsibility to maintain the parking lot. A shopping center maintenance worker, who worked at the shop five days a week, testified that he inspected the parking lot each day to search for potholes. The owner of Marrazzo’s testified that his store manager’s duties included inspecting the parking area for safety issues. If an issue was discovered, they were to notify the landlord.
Marrazzo’s motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court, which found that as a commercial tenant in a multi-tenant facility, the store owed no duty of care to its invitee for an injury that occurred in the shopping center’s common area. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that Marrazzo’s had a duty to provide safe passage to and from its store.
The Court acknowledged the expansion of a duty on commercial landowners to provide patrons with safe ingress and egress, which includes maintaining the condition of a parking lot and the area between an owned establishment and a parking area. The Appellate Division also noted that case law extended this duty to commercial lessees who were exclusive occupants of a facility. However, in affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Marrazzo’s, the court refused to extend liability to commercial tenants in a multi-tenant shopping center when those tenants do not have control over common areas, or an obligation, contractual or otherwise, to maintain such areas.
According to the Court, the policy reasons for expanding the duty of a commercial landowner set forth in Stewart v. 104 Wallace St., Inc., 87 N.J. 146 (1981), when applied in this case, did not warrant further expansion to commercial tenants. Likewise, while stating that contractual provisions in a lease requiring a landlord to maintain common areas will not necessarily relieve a commercial tenant of all duties to its customers regarding ingress and egress, the assignment of maintenance responsibilities significantly impact the ability of a tenant, such as Marrazzo’s, to address conditions in common areas. Finally, the Court explained that innocent victims would not be left without redress, as it was clear in this case that the commercial landowner was liable for any negligence in maintaining the parking lot where the plaintiff fell.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.