Title: McDaid v. Aztec West Condominium Association
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: July 17, 2018

McDaid v. Aztec West Condominium Association Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary Plaintiff Maureen McDaid brought a negligence action against defendants Aztec West Condominium Association; Preferred Management, Inc., the Association’s management company; and Bergen Hydraulic Elevator, the elevator-maintenance provider. The complaint alleged that McDaid suffered serious injuries when she was exiting the elevator and the elevator doors unexpectedly and “repeatedly” closed on her. At the end of the discovery period, 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.” The New Jersey Supreme Court found that because the malfunctioning of elevator doors that close on a passenger bespeaks negligence, giving rise to a res ipsa inference, the trial court improvidently granted summary judgment. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of New Jersey? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of New Jersey. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . SYLLABUS(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of an opinion may not have been summarized.) Maureen McDaid v. Aztec West Condominium Association (A-88-16) (079325)Argued March 12, 2018 -- Decided July 17, 2018ALBIN, J., writing for 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. In Jerista v. Murray, the Court 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 (2005). In this negligence case, the Court considers 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. Plaintiff Maureen McDaid brought a negligence action against defendants Aztec West Condominium Association; Preferred Management, Inc., the Association’s management company; and Bergen Hydraulic Elevator, the elevator-maintenance provider. The complaint alleged that McDaid suffered serious injuries when she was exiting the elevator and the elevator doors unexpectedly and “repeatedly” closed on her. 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 elevator and determined that the electric eye was in need of repair. Shortly afterward, Bergen Hydraulic conducted an inspection and found that the elevator’s electric eye’s relay contacts were “not functioning properly” and repaired it that day. 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. 1 At the end of the discovery period, 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 (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. In an unreported opinion, the Appellate Division affirmed, “substantially for the reasons expressed by [the trial court].” The Court granted McDaid’s petition for certification. 230 N.J. 528 (2017).HELD: 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 inference, 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.1. Under the Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1 to -38, condominium associations are “responsible for the administration and management of the condominium and condominium property.” N.J.S.A. 46:8B-12. One such duty is to ensure that “elevator doors, . . . safety devices and operating mechanisms [are] maintained in good working order and free of hazards.” N.J.A.C. 5:10-12.1(a). That duty necessarily includes a duty of reasonable care to guard against any dangerous conditions relating to the elevator that the association either knows about or should have discovered. (pp. 11-12)2. In a premises liability case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the property owner’s negligence caused her injuries. Jerista, 185 N.J. at 191. “Res ipsa loquitur, Latin for 'the thing speaks for itself,’ is a longstanding evidentiary rule grounded in principles of equity” that “enables the plaintiff to make out a prima facie case” in certain circumstances. Ibid. The res ipsa doctrine allows a factfinder to draw an inference of negligence when: “(a) the occurrence itself ordinarily bespeaks negligence; (b) the instrumentality was within the defendant’s exclusive control; 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 192. The present case implicates only the first prong of the res ipsa analysis -- whether the closing of automatic elevator doors on a passenger “ordinarily bespeaks negligence.” Whether an accident “ordinarily bespeaks negligence” requires a probability assessment. Obviously, automatic doors are not supposed to close on and seriously injure a passenger who enters or exits an elevator. But if that happens, is it more likely that the accident occurred because due care was not exercised in the maintenance of the elevator or because elevator doors will malfunction, from time to time, without anyone being at fault? (pp. 12-14) 2 3. To invoke the res ipsa inference, a plaintiff does not have to exclude alternative possible causes of the accident, “provided that the circumstances establish 'that it is more probable than not that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the mishap.’” Ibid. The res ipsa inference ordinarily will allow the plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss at the summary judgment stage unless “the defendant’s countervailing proofs are so overwhelming that they destroy any reasonable inference of negligence.” Id. at 193. (pp. 14-15)4. The Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa in Jerista, a case involving a supermarket’s automatic door that caused injury to a patron. Id. at 190-200. The Court reasoned that “[a]n automatic door may be a highly sophisticated piece of machinery, but it probably does not close on an innocent patron causing injury unless the premises’ owner negligently maintained it. That conclusion can be reached based on common knowledge without resort to expert testimony.” Id. at 197. Importantly, in Jerista, the Court specifically disapproved of the legal pronouncements in Jimenez v. GNOC, Corp., 286 N.J. Super. 533, 544 (App. Div. 1996), that res ipsa is inapplicable in complex instrumentality cases unless expert testimony is presented and the injured party “exclude[s] other possible causes of the injury.” Id. at 197-98. Here, the trial court and appellate panel relied on those discredited legal pronouncements, not the principles discussed in Jerista. (pp. 15-18)5. In a negligent-maintenance action against a premises’ owner and others who exercise exclusive control, the res ipsa principles enunciated in Jerista apply as strongly to malfunctioning elevator doors as they do to malfunctioning automatic doors. Just as, based on common knowledge, an automatic door “probably does not close on an innocent patron causing injury unless the premises’ owner negligently maintained it,” Jerista, 185 N.J. at 197, the same is true of a malfunctioning elevator door. New Jersey joins those jurisdictions that apply the res ipsa inference to cases involving malfunctioning elevator doors. (pp. 18-20)6. Because the malfunctioning of elevator doors that close on a passenger bespeaks negligence, giving rise to a res ipsa inference, the trial court improvidently granted summary judgment based on its analysis of prong one of the res ipsa doctrine. To gain the benefit of the res ipsa inference, McDaid did not have to present expert testimony pinpointing the cause of the malfunction. McDaid was not required to provide evidence that excluded other possible causes of her injuries or that defendants were on notice of a malfunction to trigger the res ipsa inference. This is not a case where proofs presented by defendants were “so overwhelming that they destroy[ed] any reasonable inference of negligence.” See id. at 193. At trial, defendants may offer their defenses against the negligence claims, and a jury will be free to accept or reject the res ipsa inference. At this summary judgment stage, however, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to McDaid. Accordingly, the Court reverses the judgment of the Appellate Division and remands to the trial court for further proceedings. (pp. 20-23) REVERSED.CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA, SOLOMON, and TIMPONE join in JUSTICE ALBIN’s opinion. 3 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 88 September Term 2016 079325MAUREEN MCDAID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.AZTEC WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, BERGEN HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR, and PREFERRED MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants-Respondents. Argued March 12, 2018 – Decided July 17, 2018 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Lisa A. Lehrer argued the cause for appellant (Davis, Saperstein & Salomon, attorneys; Lisa A. Lehrer, of counsel and on the brief). Robert J. Mormile 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, on the briefs). William L. Gold 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). 1 JUSTICE ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court. Res ipsa loquitur is an equitable doctrine that allows, inappropriate circumstances, a permissive inference of negligenceto be drawn against a party who exercises exclusive control ofan instrumentality that malfunctions and causes injury toanother. The rationale for the res ipsa inference is that theinjury-causing occurrence ordinarily would not happen in theabsence of negligence and that the party controlling theinstrumentality is in the best position to explain what wentwrong and why. In Jerista v. Murray, we held that the res ipsainference applied to a supermarket’s automatic door that wentawry, striking and injuring a customer as she entered the store.185 N.J. 175, 190-200 (2005). In this negligence case, we must decide whether theprinciples enunciated in Jerista apply equally to a condominiumbuilding’s elevator doors that opened and closed on plaintiff, aresident, seriously injuring her as she attempted to exit theelevator. The trial court rejected the res ipsa inference,finding that the cause of an elevator’s malfunction can beunrelated to negligent maintenance and that plaintiff failed tooffer proofs excluding non-fault-based causes. Based in largepart on its rejection of the res ipsa inference, the courtgranted summary judgment to defendants. The Appellate Division 2 affirmed. We now hold that the dictates of Jerista apply to the factspresented here. The res ipsa inference of negligence isapplicable because common experience instructs that elevatordoors -- however complex their operation may be -- ordinarilyshould not strike a person entering or exiting an elevator inthe absence of negligence. To warrant the res ipsa inference,the injured plaintiff had no obligation to exclude otherpossible causes that might explain the malfunctioning of theelevator doors or to show that defendants were on notice of somedefect in the doors’ operation. In granting summary judgment infavor of defendants, the trial court and Appellate Divisionerred in finding that res ipsa does not apply to malfunctioningelevator doors. We therefore reverse the entry of summary judgment andremand for further proceedings. I. A. Plaintiff Maureen McDaid brought a negligence actionagainst defendants Aztec West Condominium Association for AztecWest Condominium in Hackensack (the Condominium Association);Preferred Management, Inc., the Association’s managementcompany; and Bergen Hydraulic Elevator, the elevator-maintenanceprovider. Howard Gartenberg served as the Condominium 3 Association’s property manager. The complaint alleged thatMcDaid suffered serious injuries when she was exiting theelevator and the elevator doors unexpectedly and “repeatedly”closed on her. Defendants moved for summary judgment, claimingthat McDaid did not make out a prima facie case of negligence. We rely on the factual presentation in the summary judgmentrecord, giving McDaid -- the non-moving party -- the benefit ofthe most favorable evidence to support her claim, as we must atthis stage in the proceedings. See R. 4:46-2; Bauer v. Nesbitt,198 N.J. 601, 604 n.1 (2009) (“In considering the merits of amotion for summary judgment, both trial and appellate courtsmust view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party . . . .”). B. McDaid, who has cerebral palsy, was a resident of the AztecWest Condominium in Hackensack. Sometime in mid to lateSeptember 2010, McDaid complained to Gartenberg that theelevator door was “closing too fast.” Gartenberg communicatedthis information to Bergen Hydraulic’s representative.1 McDaidasserts that on October 14, 2010, she entered the building’selevator and rode it to the lobby. According to McDaid, as she1 In depositions, Gartenberg claimed that Bergen Hydraulic’s representative slowed the closing speed of the elevator doors during a maintenance visit on September 22, 2010, but Bergen’s representative denied that he did so or was asked to do so. 4 exited the elevator, the elevator doors closed prematurely,striking her and knocking her to the ground. She fell faceforward, hitting her head on her walker. As she lay prone, thedoors opened and closed on her a second time. McDaid sufferedinjuries to various parts of her body and required a seventeen-day stay at a rehabilitation institute where she receivedextensive physical therapy and other medical treatment. The elevator doors were equipped with two safety features -- a mechanical safety edge and an electric eye. A mechanicalsafety edge is a bumper that causes an elevator door to retractwhen it makes contact with an object. An electric eye emitslight beams from the elevator doors across the entrancethreshold, detecting the presence of objects in its pathway. Ifworking properly, the electric eye prevents the elevator doorsfrom closing on a person. Four days after the accident, a construction code officialfor the City of Hackensack inspected the condominium’s elevatorand 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. TheCondominium Association contracted with Preferred Management tomaintain the common elements of the condominium property, 5 including the mechanical equipment owned by the Association.Beginning in 1995, the Condominium Association contracted withBergen Hydraulic to provide monthly and emergency service andmaintenance to the elevator, and to repair and replace elevatordoor protection and photoelectric devices. Each defendantdenied knowledge of any malfunction or problems with theelevator’s electric eye before the accident. McDaid provided a report from an expert in elevator repairand maintenance, who concluded that the elevator’smalfunctioning electric eye caused the accident. TheCondominium Association and Preferred Management submitted anexpert report from a certified elevator inspector, which statedthat McDaid’s “failure to clear the path” of the closingelevator door “in a timely manner” was the proximate cause ofher injuries. Bergen Hydraulic’s expert report agreed with thatassertion and stated that the elevator was “properly maintained”at the time of the accident. C. At the end of the discovery period, defendants moved forsummary judgment on the basis that they did not have notice of amalfunctioning electric eye before the accident and thereforeMcDaid could not hold them liable for negligently causing herinjuries. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of 6 defendants and dismissed McDaid’s complaint. The court rejectedthe application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, findingthat the malfunctioning of elevator doors is not an occurrencethat “ordinarily bespeaks negligence.” More specifically, thecourt stated that McDaid “did not refute the contention that theelectric eye, being a mechanical device, is subject to failurefrom time to time totally unrelated to negligence.” Relying onGore v. Otis Elevator Co., 335 N.J. Super. 296, 302-03 (App.Div. 2000), the court held that McDaid failed “to bring forthaffirmative evidence that tends to exclude other causes” for themalfunctioning of the elevator. The court accepted that the parties had a legitimatedispute about whether the electric eye malfunctioned, causingthe elevator doors to close on McDaid. The court, however,concluded that McDaid failed to establish that defendants hadactual or constructive notice of the malfunctioning electriceye. Additionally, the trial court struck, as a net opinion,the part of McDaid’s expert report that stated that BergenHydraulic should have recommended that the protection system inthe condominium’s elevator “be replaced with a new upgradedsafer reopening device.” For those reasons, the court determined that McDaid fell 7 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 didnot apply, relying on Gore, 335 N.J. Super. at 296, a case inwhich the Appellate Division “declined to apply the [res ipsa]doctrine against an elevator company in an action for negligentmaintenance of elevator doors.” The panel also agreed that partof McDaid’s expert report, referring to the failure to upgradethe elevator’s protection system, constituted a net opinion.The panel ultimately held that defendants’ lack of “actual orconstructive 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 (2017). We also granted the motion of the New JerseyAssociation for Justice (NJAJ) to participate as amicus curiae. II. A. McDaid argues that the Condominium Association, which2 The parties disputed a number of facts that the trial court erroneously treated as undisputed. Those disputed facts included: whether Gartenberg communicated McDaid’s complaint about the speed of the elevator door to Bergen Hydraulic; whether the speed was adjusted before the accident; and whether the elevator was serviced three weeks before the accident. 8 exercised control over the condominium property, owed a non-delegable duty to ensure the safety of those who used theelevator and that all defendants breached their duty toadequately maintain and repair the elevator. McDaid assertsthat she was entitled to a res ipsa inference because elevatordoors probably do not malfunction in the absence of negligence.She also claims that the trial court improvidently grantedsummary judgment because she established a prima facie casethrough the res ipsa inference, her expert report, and heraccount as presented in discovery. B. Amicus curiae NJAJ expresses its concern that the AppellateDivision’s interpretation of res ipsa undermines the doctrine’svery purpose, which is to shift to a defendant the obligation ofexplaining why an instrumentality under its control causedinjury to a plaintiff. According to NJAJ, requiring theplaintiff to point to the specific act of negligence of thedefendant denies the plaintiff the benefit of the res ipsainference. NJAJ asserts that an elevator door that closes on apassenger is an occurrence that bespeaks negligence, giving riseto a res ipsa inference. C. Defendants argue that the Appellate Division properlyaffirmed the grant of summary judgment. They contend that the 9 res ipsa inference is inapplicable to cases involvingmalfunctioning elevator doors for the reasons expressed in Gore,335 N.J. Super. at 303. Relying on Gore, defendants submit thatin a negligence action involving a complex instrumentality, suchas an elevator, the plaintiff “must bring forth affirmativeevidence that tends to exclude other possible causes of theinjury.” See ibid. They assert that an elevator’s electric eye“is a piece of mechanical equipment containing relays which,without notice or negligence, may on occasion fail” andtherefore res ipsa is not an appropriate fit in this context. Further, defendants maintain that McDaid failed to presentevidence that the elevator’s electric eye was not workingproperly or that they had notice that it was malfunctioningbefore the accident. They assert that in the absence of actualor constructive notice of some defect in the operation of theelevator doors, they cannot be held liable in negligence. Theyalso point to the reports of their experts, who opined thatMcDaid “was not within the plane of the electric eye sufficientto trigger the safety feature.” With that evidentialfoundation, the Condominium Association and Preferred Managementtheorized that McDaid’s “neurological condition suggest[ed] acause of [her] injuries wholly unrelated to the elevator’sfunction.” III. 10 A. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to anallegedly malfunctioning elevator door that causes injury to apassenger is an issue of law. We review matters of law de novo,owing no deference to the interpretive conclusions of either thetrial court or Appellate Division. Qian v. Toll Bros. Inc., 223 N.J. 124, 135 (2015). B. Under the Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1 to -38,condominium associations are “responsible for the administrationand management of the condominium and condominium property.”N.J.S.A. 46:8B-12. A condominium association’s responsibilityextends to “[t]he maintenance, repair, [and] replacement . . .of the common elements.” N.J.S.A. 46:8B-14(a). An elevatorshared by the condominium community is part of the commonelements or common areas. See N.J.A.C. 5:10-2.2 (defining“common area” as “all areas accessible to, and which may beutilized by either occupants of a building or the general public. . . which is not part of any dwelling unit”). Like any premises owner under the common law, a condominiumassociation has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protectthe condominium’s residents from a dangerous condition onproperty within the ambit of the common elements. See Qian, 223 N.J. at 137 (citing Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 11 426, 433-34 (1993)). A condominium association’s duty to keepthe common elements reasonably safe is non-delegable. N.J.A.C.5:10-4.1(a). In accordance with the Act, condominiumassociations have the duty of a premises owner as set forth inthe governing regulations, N.J.A.C. 5:10-4.1(c), and one suchduty is to ensure that “elevator doors, . . . safety devices andoperating mechanisms [are] maintained in good working order andfree of hazards,” N.J.A.C. 5:10-12.1(a). That duty necessarilyincludes “a duty of reasonable care to guard against anydangerous conditions [relating to the elevator] that the[association] either knows about or should have discovered.”See Hopkins, 132 N.J. at 434; see also N.J.A.C. 5:23-12.1 to -12.12 (setting forth detailed standards for maintenance andinspection of elevators). Finally, “[i]f an elevator is covered by a maintenanceagreement, the ambit of a maintenance contractor’s duty to thirdpersons may be measured by the nature and scope of itscontractual undertaking.” Rosenberg v. Otis Elevator Co., 366 N.J. Super. 292, 303 (App. Div. 2004) (alteration in original)(quoting Qualls v. U.S. Elevator Corp., 863 P.2d 457 , 462-63(Okla. 1993)). C. In a premises liability case, the plaintiff has the burdenof proving that the property owner’s negligence caused her 12 injuries. Jerista, 185 N.J. at 191. “Res ipsa loquitur, Latinfor 'the thing speaks for itself,’ is a longstanding evidentiaryrule grounded in principles of equity” that “enables theplaintiff to make out a prima facie case” in certaincircumstances. Ibid. The res ipsa doctrine allows a factfinderto draw an inference of negligence when: “(a) the occurrenceitself ordinarily bespeaks negligence; (b) the instrumentalitywas within the defendant’s exclusive control; and (c) there isno indication in the circumstances that the injury was theresult of the plaintiff’s own voluntary act or neglect.” Id. at192 (quoting Buckelew v. Grossbard, 87 N.J. 512, 525 (1981)). The res ipsa doctrine advances the common-sense notion thatthe party who maintains exclusive control over the object thatgoes awry and causes injury is in a superior position to explainwhat went wrong and why. Ibid. When the evidence provides areasonable basis for invoking res ipsa, then the factfinder caninfer “that if due care had been exercised by the person havingcontrol of the instrumentality causing the injury, the mishapwould not have occurred.” Brown v. Racquet Club of Bricktown,95 N.J. 280, 288-89 (1984) (quoting Bornstein v. Metro. BottlingCo., 26 N.J. 263, 269 (1958)). Although the ultimate burden ofpersuasion always remains with the plaintiff, the res ipsainference gives an incentive to the defendant to dispel theinference by showing that whatever went wrong was not due to his 13 negligence or was due to the fault of some other person or theplaintiff. Jerista, 185 N.J. at 192. The case before us implicates only the first prong of theres ipsa analysis -- whether the closing of automatic elevatordoors on a passenger “ordinarily bespeaks negligence.” Whetheran accident “ordinarily bespeaks negligence” requires aprobability assessment -- is it more or less likely that such anevent would occur in the absence of negligence? See Buckelew,87 N.J. at 526-27. Obviously, automatic doors are not supposedto close on and seriously injure a passenger who enters or exitsan elevator. But if that happens, is it more likely that theaccident occurred because due care was not exercised in themaintenance of the elevator or because elevator doors willmalfunction, from time to time, without anyone being at fault?3That is the basic question raised in deciding whether res ipsaapplies to the facts of this case. To invoke the res ipsa inference, a plaintiff does not haveto exclude alternative possible causes of the accident,“provided that the circumstances establish 'that it is moreprobable than not that the defendant’s negligence was aproximate cause of the mishap.’” Jerista, 185 N.J. at 1923 McDaid did not pursue a product liability action against the manufacturer, and defendants have not suggested that the elevator itself is inherently defective. 14 (quoting Brown, 95 N.J. at 291-92). The res ipsa inferenceordinarily will allow the plaintiff to establish a prima faciecase and survive a motion to dismiss at the summary judgmentstage -- that is, unless “the defendant’s countervailing proofsare so overwhelming that they destroy any reasonable inferenceof negligence.” Id. at 193 (citing Brown, 95 N.J. at 289).Because the res ipsa inference is simply permissive, if the casegoes to trial, “the factfinder 'is free to accept or reject’it.” Ibid. (quoting Buckelew, 87 N.J. at 526). D. With those general principles as our guide, we applied thedoctrine of res ipsa in Jerista, a case involving asupermarket’s automatic door that caused injury to a patron.185 N.J. at 190-200. In that case, the automatic door openedinward as the patron entered the supermarket, and then “suddenlyswung backwards, striking her right side and briefly pinning herbody, causing significant injuries.” Id. at 182. We rejectedthe notion that a negligence action involving a complexinstrumentality necessarily required the patron to produceexpert testimony to gain the res ipsa inference. Id. at 197-99.The drawing of a res ipsa inference does not depend on “whetherthe instrumentality at issue is complex or simple, but whetherbased on common knowledge the balance of probabilities favorsnegligence.” Id. at 199. Thus, “[o]nly when the res ipsa 15 inference falls outside of the common knowledge of thefactfinder and depends on scientific, technical, or otherspecialized knowledge is expert testimony required.” Ibid. With regard to the automatic door in Jerista, we reasonedthat [a]n automatic door may be a highly sophisticated piece of machinery, but it probably does not close on an innocent patron causing injury unless the premises’ owner negligently maintained it. That conclusion can be reached based on common knowledge without resort to expert testimony. A jury does not need an expert to tell it what it already knows. If the premises’ owner, who has exclusive control over the automatic door, has proof that he is not to blame and that another is at fault, he must come forward to rebut the inference. [Id. at 197.] We did not break new ground in Jerista in finding that thesupermarket customer was entitled to the res ipsa inference. Werelied on our decision in Rose v. Port of New York Authority, 61 N.J. 129, 136-37 (1972), a case involving a plaintiff who wasstruck by an automatic glass door as he entered an airlineterminal. Jerista, 185 N.J. at 193-95. The res ipsa inferenceapplied in Rose “because it is common knowledge that peopleordinarily pass through automatic doors without sufferinginjury, and that an automatic door smashing into a customer'strongly suggests a malfunction which in turn suggestsneglect.’” Id. at 195 (quoting Rose, 61 N.J. at 136-37). In 16 Jerista, we cited a number of jurisdictions that agreed withthat proposition. Id. at 196; see, e.g., Brewster v. UnitedStates, 542 N.W.2d 524, 531-32 (Iowa 1996) (noting that majorityof courts “have concluded an automatic door malfunction does notoccur in the absence of negligence” and that “it is within thecommon experience of lay people to come to this conclusion”). Importantly, in Jerista, we specifically disapproved of thelegal pronouncements in Jimenez v. GNOC, Corp., 286 N.J. Super. 533, 544 (App. Div. 1996), that res ipsa is inapplicable incomplex instrumentality cases unless expert testimony ispresented and the injured party “exclude[s] other possiblecauses of the injury.” 185 N.J. at 197-98 (quoting Jerista v.Murray, 367 N.J. Super. 292, 300 (App. Div. 2004)). Here, thetrial court and appellate panel relied on those discreditedlegal pronouncements, citing to Gore, 335 N.J. Super. at 302-03,which, in turn, looked to Jimenez for support. To be sure, Gore involved allegedly malfunctioning elevatordoors that caused injury to the plaintiff, 335 N.J. Super. at 299-300, not an automatic store door as in Jerista or an airportdoor as in Rose. Nevertheless, it bears mentioning that afterour decision in Jerista, we granted certification in Huszar v.Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 375 N.J. Super. 463 (App. Div.2005), an elevator-door case, and “summarily remanded to thetrial court for reconsideration in light of Jerista.” 185 N.J. 17 290 (2005).4 Neither the trial court nor the Appellate Divisionin the present case applied the principles discussed in Jerista. A number of jurisdictions have held that elevator doorsthat close on a passenger causing injuries give rise to a resipsa inference of negligence. See, e.g., Knight v. OtisElevator Co., 596 F.2d 84, 90-91 (3d Cir. 1979) (permitting resipsa inference to allow jury to determine whether “the prematureclosing of the elevator doors does not usually occur unless thedefendant has been negligent”); First Nat’l Bank v. OtisElevator Co., 406 P.2d 430, 434 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965) (applyingres ipsa because “a jury might well believe plaintiff was hit bythe elevator door, and that elevator doors do not hit people inthe absence of someone’s negligence”); Little Rock Land Co. v.Raper, 433 S.W.2d 836 , 842 (Ark. 1968) (holding “[t]heapplication of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was noterroneous” against building owner after elevator doors closed onplaintiff); Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Gordon, 619 P.2d 66 , 69(Colo. 1980) (applying res ipsa because “[c]ommon sense andexperience tell us that elevators do not usually operate in this4 In Huszar, while visiting the Sands Hotel and Casino, the plaintiff was injured when the elevator closed on her and knocked her to the ground. 375 N.J. Super. at 467. The Appellate Division concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the res ipsa inference because “elevator doors are complex instrumentalities requiring plaintiff to present expert testimony to establish a defective mechanism” or negligent maintenance. Id. at 475-76. 18 manner and that, when they do, negligence is a more probableexplanation than other causes” (quoting Gordon v. WestinghouseElec. Corp., 599 P.2d 953 , 955 (Colo. App. 1979))); OtisElevator Co. v. Henderson, 514 A.2d 784 , 785 (D.C. 1986)(finding res ipsa applicable despite plaintiff’s inability “toidentify the specific mechanical failing”); Greet v. OtisElevator Co., 187 A.2d 896 , 897-98 (D.C. 1963) (permitting resipsa instruction against multiple defendants despite plaintiff“offer[ing] no evidence as to the cause or reason” in elevator-door case); Burns v. Otis Elevator Co., 550 So. 2d 21, 22 (Fla.Dist. Ct. App. 1989) (“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur isparticularly applicable in elevator cab cases.” (quotingFerguson v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 408 So. 2d 659, 660-61(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981))); Carney v. Otis Elevator Co., 536 A.2d 804 , 806 n.1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988) (finding elevator doorscrushing plaintiff “an appropriate case for the utilization ofres ipsa loquitur”). However, not all jurisdictions apply the res ipsa inferencein elevator-door cases. See, e.g., Pratt v. Freese’s, Inc., 438 A.2d 901 , 904 (Me. 1981) (declining to apply res ipsa because“[t]here must be proof that the accident would not have occurredhad the defendants used due care” and “[p]laintiffs introducedno evidence to show that at the time of the accident a defect inthe elevator existed which either defendant could have remedied 19 by using due care”). We now hold that, in a negligent-maintenance action againsta premises’ owner and others who exercise exclusive control, theres ipsa principles enunciated in Jerista apply as strongly tomalfunctioning elevator doors as they do to malfunctioningautomatic doors. We cannot discern a rational distinctionbetween the two classes of cases -- elevator doors and automaticdoors. Just as, based on common knowledge, an automatic door“probably does not close on an innocent patron causing injuryunless the premises’ owner negligently maintained it,” Jerista,185 N.J. at 197, the same is true of a malfunctioning elevatordoor. It may well be that elevator-door accidents will occur attimes without anyone being at fault. However, based on “thebalance of probabilities,” an elevator door that closes onto andinjures a passenger is an occurrence bespeaking negligence thatfalls within the common knowledge of judges and jurors. See id.at 192, 200. We therefore join those jurisdictions that apply the resipsa inference to cases involving malfunctioning elevator doors.In light of this holding, we must determine whether the trialcourt properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendantsin the present case. IV. Because the malfunctioning of elevator doors that close on 20 a passenger bespeaks negligence, giving rise to a res ipsainference, we find that the trial court improvidently grantedsummary judgment. To gain the benefit of th