Court Opinion

ID: 9859266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 19:33:03.506278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:21:36.635770
License: Public Domain

Justice LONG,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that this is not a traditional res ipsa loquitur case insofar as it cannot be said that the occurrence of the cave-in “ordinarily bespeaks negligence.” Myrlak v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., 157 N.J. 84, 95, 723 A.2d 45 (1999) (stating, to invoke res ipsa loquitur, plaintiff must establish occurrence ordinarily bespeaks negligence, instrumentality within defendant’s exclusive control, and injury not result of plaintiffs own voluntary act or neglect) (citing Bornstein v. Metropolitan Bottling Co., 26 N.J. 263, 269, 139 A.2d 404 (1958)).
I part company from my colleagues in connection with the necessary implication of the majority opinion that the mere refilling of the hole in the parking lot, into which the entirely innocent plaintiff fell, was an adequate response by the commercial landowner.
For me, the commercial landowner’s plugging of the hole without taking steps to determine whether it is likely to recur at other *404locations in the parking lot (as a result, for example, of underground hydrological or geological conditions) fell short. The commercial landowner owes a transcendent duty to the public to keep its commercial premises safe or to warn of known dangers. Brown v. Racquet Club of Bricktown, 95 N.J. 280, 290-91, 471 A.2d 25 (1984). That duty is breached in a case like this in which the landowner made no effort to isolate the cause of the cave-in, probably hoping (without any supportive evidence) that it was a freak accident that would not recur. That is nothing more than gambling with the safety of the public and should not be tolerated.
I would hold that the initial obligation to determine the cause of the cave-in falls on the commercial landowner who is not only in the best position to set the investigatory wheels in motion on his own property, but who also has a pre-existing and overarching duty to protect his invitees against hidden dangers of which he is aware. The commercial landowner can only satisfy that duty, on these facts, by immediately investigating the cause of the collapse and taking appropriate action or warning the public not to use the lot. Recognition of that obligation fully accords with the principles we established as relevant to a duty analysis in Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 625 A.2d 1110 (1993): “the relationship of the parties, the nature of the attendant risk, the opportunity and ability to exercise care, and the public interest in the proposed solution.” Id. at 439, 625 A.2d 1110.
To be sure, plaintiff left much to be desired in the way he pursued the discovery aspect of this case. However, because the commercial landowner also fell far short in its much more important duty, I would reverse the trial court’s order denying plaintiffs request for an extension of the discovery deadline. During the extension period, I would require the commercial landowner to attempt to ascertain the cause of the cave-in, share that information with plaintiff in discovery, and permit plaintiff to investigate further as well. After exchanging discovery, I would direct the trial judge to reconsider the motion to dismiss.
*405Justices ZAZZALI and ALBIN join in this opinion.
For affirmance — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices LaVECCHIA, WALLACE and RIVERA-SOTO — 4.
Concurring in part; dissenting in part — Justices LONG, ZAZZALI and ALBIN — 3.