Court Opinion

ID: 9948083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 15:08:44.316353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:04.611252
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                               APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
        This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
     internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-0065-22

PETER KRASSNER,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WALMART,

          Defendant-Appellant,

and

JASON CUZZO,

          Defendant.

                   Argued December 4, 2023 – Decided March 6, 2024

                   Before Judges Mawla, Marczyk, and Chase.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Somerset County, Docket No. L-0839-18.

                   Michael K. Furey argued the cause for appellant (Day
                   Pitney, LLP, attorneys; Michael K. Furey, of counsel
                   and on the briefs; Joseph W. Ritter, on the briefs).
            Brett Roger Greiner argued the cause for respondent
            (Levinson Axelrod, PA, attorneys; Brett Roger Greiner,
            on the brief).

PER CURIAM

      Defendant Walmart Stores East, L.P. ("Walmart") appeals from the trial

court's August 10, 2022 order denying its motions for a new trial and a remittitur

and denying its motion for reconsideration of the court's denial of a motion for

a directed verdict. Walmart further appeals the September 1, 2022 order of

judgment. Based on our review of the record and applicable legal principles,

we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent

with this opinion.

                                        I.

      On February 23, 2018, plaintiff Peter Krassner was a customer at Walmart

in Hamilton, Mercer County. Plaintiff entered an aisle where a beam extended

from the floor to the ceiling partially obstructing a portion of the aisle. A fire

extinguisher was attached to the aisle side of the beam. A short time after

entering the aisle, plaintiff started backing out of the aisle while pulling his

shopping cart. Plaintiff did not look behind him as he moved backwards towards

the extinguisher.    His left shoulder "lightly brushed" the fire extinguisher

mounted on the beam causing it to fall onto his left foot. Plaintiff picked up the

                                                                            A-0065-22
                                        2
fallen extinguisher and placed it next to the beam. The incident was captured

by defendant's video surveillance system.

      Plaintiff subsequently filed an incident report with Walmart and showed

Walmart employees where the incident occurred. One of the employees, David

Ferguson—a customer service manager—observed the band for the fire

extinguisher was "warped," "buckled," and not "perfectly rounded." The straps

were supposed to be "flush against the cylinder of the fire extinguisher." When

he tried placing the fire extinguisher back in the harness and to recreate the

incident, the "latch disengaged immediately." Ferguson noted the band was not

supposed to disengage from a single bump. Ferguson also reviewed the video

and stated that it was "fair to say" plaintiff did not make any forceful movements

towards the extinguisher.

      Walmart's store manager, Jason Cuzzo, also testified, based on the video

footage, he did not observe plaintiff do anything inappropriate leading to the

incident. He testified Walmart's asset protection department is responsible for

inspecting fire extinguishers and documenting the inspections monthly. They

are also supposed to "visually keep their eye[s] on things" at other times between

inspections but are only required to complete a formal check-list once a month.

                                                                            A-0065-22
                                        3
      The asset protection manager Barbara Laytham's deposition testimony

was read to the jury. She acknowledged that if someone had inspected the

extinguisher's harness before the accident, they may have noticed if it was

exceedingly easy to undo. She also stated defendant kept extra harnesses in the

store to replace loose harnesses.

      Following the incident, plaintiff went to the emergency room at the St.

Francis Medical Center where he was diagnosed with a contusion of the left foot

and was placed in a boot. He also went to the emergency room at Robert Wood

Johnson University Hospital in March 2018, due to continued significant pain,

swelling, and limited range of motion in his foot.

      Plaintiff continued to experience excruciating pain, discoloration, and a

lack of ability to use his foot.    He was eventually referred to Dr. Lance

Markbreiter in June 2018. Dr. Markbreiter is an orthopedic surgeon whose

practice includes treating patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

("CRPS").1 He has also lectured regarding CRPS. Dr. Markbreiter ultimately

1
  CRPS is a broad term that covers a condition involving long-lasting pain and
inflammation that can occur after an injury or a medical event or trauma.
Although CRPS can occur anywhere in the body, it usually affects a person's
arm, leg, hand, or foot. People living with CRPS have pain that is much greater
than normal, even without a visible injury. Severe or long-lasting cases of CRPS
can be disabling and can prevent a person from working or doing their usual

                                                                          A-0065-22
                                       4
diagnosed plaintiff with CRPS of the left foot. In reaching this conclusion, Dr.

Markbreiter used the "Budapest Criteria," a widely accepted standard for

diagnosing CRPS. 2 Dr. Markbreiter testified he also based his diagnosis on

plaintiff's electromyography ("EMG") and nerve conduction studies ("NCS").

He noted plaintiff had already started to develop progressive CRPS when he

went to Robert Wood Johnson in March 2018.

      Plaintiff was referred to a pain management specialist for sympathetic

nerve block injections, but they were unsuccessful. When the nerve block

injections failed, it was recommended plaintiff have a spinal cord stimulator

implanted to assist in controlling pain. Plaintiff decided not to undergo this

procedure because of the associated risks. Dr. Markbreiter testified there is "no

curative treatment" for CRPS, and he opined plaintiff has a "permanent injury."

activities. Nat'l Inst. of Health, Complex Reg'l Pain Syndrome, Nat'l Inst. of
Neurological Disorders & Stroke, https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-
information/disorders/complex-regional-pain-syndrome (last reviewed Jan. 31,
2024).
2
   According to Dr. Markbreiter, the Budapest Criteria is based on symptoms
and signs of abnormal pain sensation such as allodynia (disproportionate pain
or sensation) or hyperalgesia; vasomotor (temperature or skin color changes);
sudomotor/edema (changes in sweating or limb swelling); and motor/trophic
(decreased mobility, changes in hair, nails, and skin) changes.

                                                                           A-0065-22
                                       5
        Plaintiff, who was sixty-four at the time of trial, is the primary caregiver

for two of his grandchildren. He testified he is living with chronic pain. The

CRPS has impacted his ability to do the "majority" of activities he did prior to

the accident. He can no longer walk or stand for long periods of time and must

avoid touching the top of his foot.        Moreover, he testified his altered gait

aggravated the arthritis in his hips. Plaintiff also suffers from depression and

anxiety as a result of living with chronic pain.3

        Defendant's experts disputed Dr. Markbreiter's conclusions concerning

the diagnosis of CRPS. Walmart's experts opined plaintiff's injury merely

consisted of a contusion and hematoma. Moreover, plaintiff has a history of

diabetes, vascular disease, cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, and

osteoarthritis. Defendant's experts concluded plaintiff's extreme bruising from

the accident was caused by his pre-existing health problems and that he did not

suffer from CRPS.

        Specifically, Dr. Eric Mittelman, a board-certified neurologist, testified

plaintiff did not have any neurological injury or any other neurological

condition.     Instead, he found plaintiff had risk factors including diabetes,

3
    Plaintiff's life expectancy at the time of trial was 19.9 years.
                                                                              A-0065-22
                                           6
arthritis, and vascular disease that explain plaintiff's hematoma and pain. He

also opined plaintiff did not satisfy the Budapest Criteria.

      Dr. Anthony Parks, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, opined

plaintiff's pain in his shoulders, elbows, hips, and knees was unrelated to the

accident and was caused by pre-existing osteoarthritis in these joints. He also

explained that the accident did not cause plaintiff an injury or aggravation to

these joints.   Dr. Parks also found plaintiff only sustained a contusion.

Moreover, he testified plaintiff did not have CRPS based on the Budapest

Criteria.

      On May 16, 2022, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the amount

of $1,754,135. The jury found plaintiff was twenty-six percent liable for the

incident, and Walmart was seventy-four percent at fault. Accordingly, the trial

court molded the verdict to $1,317,299.90. Walmart moved for reconsideration

of its motion for a directed verdict. Alternatively, it also moved for a new trial

or remittitur of damages based on a variety of grounds, including plaintiff's

failure to prove the existence of a hazard, plaintiff's failure to prove notice, the

excessiveness of the verdict, and the court's issuance of a mode-of-operation

instruction to the jury. On August 10, 2022, the trial court denied defendant's

post-trial motions in a written decision. On September 1, 2022, the trial court

                                                                              A-0065-22
                                         7
entered an amended order of judgment in the amount of $1,491,562.50, which

included pre-judgment interest.

                                       II.

      Walmart raises several issues on appeal. First, it asserts the trial court

committed reversible error by utilizing a mode-of-operation charge. It argues

the trial court erred by denying its motion for a new trial because: plaintiff did

not present evidence to support the existence of a dangerous condition; plaintiff

failed to demonstrate Walmart had notice of the allegedly dangerous condition;

and plaintiff did not provide any expert testimony to support his claim that the

location and/or mounting of the fire extinguisher constituted a dangerous

condition or that Walmart had acted negligently. Walmart further contends

plaintiff's counsel impermissibly urged the jury to draw adverse inferences

based on Walmart's failure to call certain witness or present other evidence.

Walmart also asserts the damages award was a miscarriage of justice. We

address these arguments in turn below.

                                       A.

      Walmart argues the trial court improperly instructed the jury by giving a

mode-of-operation charge that allowed the jury to impose liability on defendant

                                                                            A-0065-22
                                         8
without finding any notice, either actual or constructive. Walmart asserts that

in giving this jury charge, the trial court committed reversible error.

      In Washington v. Perez, our Supreme Court articulated the standard of

review for challenging jury instructions in civil cases. 219 N.J. 338 (2014).

            Appellate review of a challenged jury instruction
            entails not only scrutiny of the charge itself, but an
            inquiry as to whether an erroneous charge may have
            affected the trial's result. Notably, "in construing a jury
            charge, a court must examine the charge as a whole,
            rather than focus on individual errors in isolation."
            Viscik v. Fowler Equip. Co., 173 N.J. 1, 18 (2002). "As
            a general matter, [appellate courts] will not reverse if
            an erroneous jury instruction was 'incapable of
            producing an unjust result or prejudicing substantial
            rights.'" Mandal v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 430 N.J.
            Super. 287, 296 (App. Div. 2013). However, erroneous
            jury instructions "constitute[] reversible error where the
            jury outcome might have been different had the jury
            been instructed correctly."          Velazquez ex rel.
            Velazquez v. Portadin, 163 N.J. 677, 688 (2000).
            Generally, "erroneous instructions on material points
            are presumed to be reversible error." McClelland v.
            Tucker, 273 N.J. Super. 410, 417 (App. Div. 1994).

            [Id. at 351 (citations reformatted).]

      Review of jury instructions is a two-step process.           First, we must

determine whether an error actually occurred. "In civil matters, the trial court

should give an instruction that appropriately guides the jury on the legal basis

of a plaintiff's claim or a defendant's affirmative defense, so long as there is a

                                                                            A-0065-22
                                        9
reasonable factual basis in the evidence to support that claim or defense."

Walker v. Costco Wholesale Warehouse, 445 N.J. Super. 111, 120 (App. Div.

2016). "Jury charges 'must outline the function of the jury, set forth the issues,

correctly state the applicable law in understandable language, and plainly spell

out how the jury should apply the legal principles to the facts as it may find

them . . . .'" Velazquez, 163 N.J. at 688 (quoting Jurman v. Samuel Braen, Inc.,

47 N.J. 586, 591-92 (1966)). Second, we must determine whether that error

"may have affected the trial's result." Walker, 445 N.J. Super. at 120 (quoting

Washington, 219 N.J. at 351). Importantly, we have noted that an improper jury

instruction is a poor candidate for application of the harmless error rule, and a

charge which misleads a jury will require a reversal and a new trial. Vallejo by

Morales v. Rahway Police Dep't, 292 N.J. Super. 333, 342 (App. Div. 1996)

(internal citations omitted).

      Over Walmart's objection, the court utilized Model Jury Charge (Civil),

5.20F(10) in charging the jury despite the court recognizing this was not a mode-

of-operation case. It appears there was some confusion about the applicability

of the charge because its title did not include "mode-of-operation" language

unlike the current mode-of-operation jury charge. See Model Jury Charge

(Civil), 5.20F(11), "Mode of Operation Rule" (rev. Nov. 2022). The court noted

                                                                            A-0065-22
                                       10
in its post-trial decision, "this [c]ourt did not provide a jury charge specific to

the [m]ode[-]of[-o]peration [r]ule. The jury was told that [p]laintiff must prove

actual or constructive notice . . . . Thus, this [c]ourt did not instruct the jury that

a finding of notice is absolutely not required." However, although the court did

give the standard notice and constructive notice charges, Model Jury Charge

(Civil), 5.20F(8), "Notice of Particular Danger as Condition of Liability" (rev.

Nov. 2022), it did in fact also give the jury a mode-of-operation charge, Model

Jury Charge (Civil), 5.20F(10), "Notice Not Required Under Certain

Circumstances" (rev. Nov. 2022).         Even though the title of 5.20F(10) had

changed and a new mode-of-operation charge has since been adopted—

5.20F(11)—the court erred in giving the 5.20F(10) charge because it was, in

substance, a mode-of-operation charge. This incorrect charge had the clear

capacity to impact the outcome of the verdict on liability.

         The court instructed the jury using the current version of Model Jury

Charge (Civil), 5.20F(10) "Notice Not Required Under Certain Circumstances,"

(rev. Nov. 2022). The charge is textually identical to the previous version,

which was the original mode-of-operation jury charge. The current version

reads:

              A proprietor of business premises has the duty to
              provide a reasonably safe place for customers. If you

                                                                                A-0065-22
                                         11
           find that the premises were in a hazardous condition,
           whether caused by defendant's employees or by others,
           such as customers, and if you find that said hazardous
           condition was likely to result from the particular
           manner in which defendant's business was conducted,
           and if you find that defendant failed to take reasonable
           measures to prevent the hazardous condition from
           arising or failed to take reasonable measures to discover
           and correct such hazardous condition, then defendant is
           liable to plaintiff. In these circumstances, defendant
           would be liable even if defendant and defendant's
           employees did not have actual or constructive
           knowledge of the particular unsafe condition, which
           caused the accident and injury.

           [Ibid.]

The prior version of the same exact charge was titled "Notice Not Required

When Mode of Operation Creates Danger." (Emphasis added).4 In short, the

charge was designed to address cases involving mode-of-operation issues.

4
  Compare Model Jury Charge (Civil), 5.20F(11) "Notice Not Required When
Mode of Operation Creates Danger," (approved May, 1970), with the newly
numbered Model Jury Charge (Civil), 5.20F(10) "Notice Not Required Under
Certain Circumstances," (rev. Nov. 2022). The 1970 version titled "Notice Not
Required When Mode of Operation Creates Danger" has the exact same
substantive language and reads:

           A proprietor of business premises has the duty to
           provide a reasonably safe place for his/her customers.
           If you find that the premises were in a hazardous
           condition, whether caused by defendant's employees or
           by others, such as customers, and if you find that said
           hazardous condition was likely to result from the

                                                                       A-0065-22
                                     12
      There are several issues with Model Jury Charge (Civil), 5.20F(10), which

render it improper for use in the present case. The drafters did not make any

modifications to it when they implemented 5.20(F)(11), which is the current

mode-of-operation jury charge.      By keeping 5.20F(10) in the Model Jury

Charges, but changing its title, it created unnecessary confusion. In fact, in

Prioleau v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, Inc., our Supreme Court noted: "The

mode-of-operation charge that has been in use since 1970, Model Jury Charge

(Civil)[,] 5.20F(10), neither reflects recent jurisprudence regarding the rule nor

clearly explains the purpose and application of the rule. We therefore urge the

Model Civil Jury Charge Committee to review the model charge." 223 N.J. 245,

            particular manner in which defendant's business was
            conducted, and if you find that defendant failed to take
            reasonable measures to prevent the hazardous condition
            from arising or failed to take reasonable measures to
            discover and correct such hazardous condition, then
            defendant is liable to plaintiff. In these circumstances
            defendant would be liable even if defendant and his/her
            employees did not have actual or constructive
            knowledge of the particular unsafe condition, which
            cause[d] the accident and injury.

            [Model Jury Charge (Civil), 5.20F(11), "Notice Not
            Required When Mode of Operation Creates Danger,"
            (approved May, 1970).]

                                                                            A-0065-22
                                       13
263 n.5 (2015). The Committee ultimately created a new mode-of-operation

jury charge, 5.20F(11), but left the text of 5.20F(10) unchanged with a new

heading: "Notice Not Required Under Certain Circumstances."

      Importantly, the Prioleau Court made clear the mode-of-operation

doctrine "has never been expanded beyond the self-service setting." Id. at 262.

Here, there was no basis for the court to utilize 5.20F(10) under the specific

facts in this case.   There is no suggestion plaintiff's contact with the fire

extinguisher occurred in the context of a self-service operation. In fact, the court

acknowledged the mode-of-operation charge was not implicated in this matter.

      By instructing the jury in accordance with Model Jury Charge (Civil),

5.20F(10), the court absolved plaintiff of their burden to prove notice or

constructive notice. Plaintiff argues the trial court did not err in giving this jury

charge because it was, at most, a harmless error. More particularly, plaintiff

asserts that because the trial court also charged the jury with Model Jury Charge

(Civil), 5.20F(8),5 it was not prejudicial to also charge 5.20F(10). This argument

5
   Model Jury Charge (Civil), 5.20F(8), "Notice of Particular Danger as
Condition of Liability," reads:

             If you find that the land (or premises) was not in a
             reasonably safe condition, then, in order to recover,
             plaintiff must show either: (a) Actual Notice for a

                                                                               A-0065-22
                                        14
is unpersuasive because 5.20F(10) completely negates the need for notice, even

if it is coupled with 5.20F(8).

      In short, 5.20F(10) is not applicable to the facts in this matter. "It is

fundamental that '[a]ppropriate and proper charges to a jury are essential for a

fair trial.'" Prioleau, 223 N.J. at 256 (alteration in original) (quoting Velazquez,

163 N.J. at 688). "The jury charge is a road map that explains the applicable

legal principles, outlines the jury's function, and spells out 'how the jury should

apply the legal principles charged to the facts of the case at hand.'" Toto v.

Ensuar, 196 N.J. 134, 144 (2008) (quoting Viscik, 173 N.J. at 18). The charge

here did not provide the jury with the proper guidance as to what legal principles

to apply to the facts in this matter. Therefore, we are constrained to reverse

            period of time before plaintiff's injury to permit the
            owner/occupier, in the exercise of reasonable care, to
            have corrected it; or (b) Constructive Notice. When the
            term Actual Notice is used, we mean that the
            owner/occupier or the owner's/occupier's employees
            actually knew about the unsafe condition. When the
            term Constructive Notice is used, we mean that the
            particular condition existed for such period of time that
            an owner/occupier of the premises in the exercise of
            reasonable care should have discovered its existence.
            That is to say, constructive notice means that the person
            having a duty of care to another is deemed to have
            notice of such unsafe conditions, which exist for such
            period of time that a person of reasonable diligence
            would have discovered them.
                                                                              A-0065-22
                                        15
based on the use of this incorrect jury charge, and we remand for a new trial on

liability.

                                       B.

       Walmart next argues the trial court should have ordered a new trial on

liability and damages because the jury's verdict is contrary to the weight of the

evidence presented at trial concerning whether: (i) a dangerous condition caused

the accident; (ii) Walmart had notice of a dangerous condition before the

accident; and (iii) expert testimony was required to prove the mounting and

location of the fire extinguisher constituted a dangerous condition.

       Our review of a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 4:49-1 and a

motion for judgment notwithstanding a verdict pursuant to Rule 4:40-2 requires

that "we apply the same standard that governs the trial courts."        Smith v.

Millville Rescue Squad, 225 N.J. 373, 397 (2016); see also Risko v. Thompson

Muller Auto. Grp., Inc., 206 N.J. 506, 522 (2011). We will disturb the trial

court's ruling only if "it clearly and convincingly appears that there was a

miscarriage of justice under the law." R. 4:49-1(a). See Risko, 206 N.J. at 521

(quoting Kulbacki v. Sobchinsky, 38 N.J. 435, 456 (1962) ("[A] motion for a

new trial 'should be granted only where to do otherwise would result in a

miscarriage of justice shocking to the conscience of the court.'")). A miscarriage

                                                                            A-0065-22
                                       16
of justice may "arise . . . from manifest lack of inherently credible evidence to

support the finding, obvious overlooking or under[-]valuation of crucial

evidence, [or] a clearly unjust result . . . ." Risko, 206 N.J. at 521 (alteration in

original) (quoting Lindenmuth v. Holden, 296 N.J. Super. 42, 48 (App. Div.

1996)).

      "On a motion for a new trial, all evidence supporting the verdict must be

accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of

upholding the verdict." Boryszewski ex rel. Boryszewski v. Burke, 380 N.J.

Super. 361, 391 (App. Div. 2005). The court's function is mechanical; it "is not

concerned with the worth, nature or extent (beyond a scintilla) of the evidence,

but only with its existence, viewed most favorably to the party opposing the

motion." Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2, 5-6 (1969).

      "A jury's verdict, including an award of damages, is cloaked with a

'presumption of correctness.'" Cuevas v. Wentworth Grp., 226 N.J. 480, 501

(2016) (quoting Baxter v. Fairmont Food Co., 74 N.J. 588, 598 (1977)). "[T]he

trial court may not disturb a damages award entered by a jury unless it is so

grossly excessive or so grossly inadequate 'that it shocks the judicial

conscience.'" Orientale v. Jennings, 239 N.J. 569, 595 (2019) (quoting Cuevas,

226 N.J. at 485). "If a damages award meets that standard, then the court must

                                                                               A-0065-22
                                        17
grant a new trial," but "has the option of recommending to the parties a remittitur

or an additur in lieu of a new trial," which "requires the mutual consent of the

parties." Id. at 596. Moreover, "[j]udicial review of the correctness of a jury's

damages award requires that the trial record be viewed in the light most

favorable to plaintiffs." Cuevas, 226 N.J. at 488. We review additur motions

under an abuse of discretion standard. Tronolone v. Palmer, 224 N.J. Super. 92,

104 (App. Div. 1988). We will also not reverse a trial court's decision to deny

a motion for a new trial "unless it clearly appears that there was a miscarriage

of justice under the law." R. 2:10-1.

      Walmart argues plaintiff failed to present the necessary evidence to prove

his claim the fire extinguisher's placement on the beam created a dangerous

condition. Defendant contends the only "evidence" of this claim was plaintiff's

counsel's assertion that the placement was dangerous. Defendant also argues

plaintiff failed to offer expert testimony supporting this claim.

      Walmart next argues plaintiff failed to proffer evidence defendant had

actual or constructive notice of the fire extinguisher being a dangerous

condition. It notes plaintiff had no knowledge regarding whether the mount was

broken before the incident or, if it was broken, for how long it had existed in

that condition. It further argues the fire extinguishers at the store were subject

                                                                             A-0065-22
                                        18
to monthly inspections, and the extinguisher at issue passed its most recent

inspection before the accident.

      Walmart next contends plaintiff was required to produce expert testimony

regarding issues concerning the location and mounting of the fire extinguisher.

Defendant further asserts there was a need for expert testimony regarding the

force required to bend the mounting brackets and whether the brackets were

damaged before or after the accident.

      A cause of action for negligence "requires the establishment of four

elements: (1) a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) actual and proximate

causation, and (4) damages." Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Melcar Util.

Co., 212 N.J. 576, 594 (2013). The plaintiff "bears the burden of establishing

those elements[] 'by some competent proof' . . . ."         Davis v. Brickman

Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 406 (2014) (citation omitted) (quoting Overby

v. Union Laundry Co., 28 N.J. Super. 100, 104 (App. Div. 1953)).

      "[A] proprietor's duty to his invitee is one of due care under all the

circumstances." Prioleau, 223 N.J. at 257 (quoting Bozza v. Vornado, Inc., 42

N.J. 355, 359 (1964)). "The duty of due care to a business invitee includes an

affirmative duty to inspect the premises and 'requires a business owner to

discover and eliminate dangerous conditions, to maintain the premises in safe

                                                                           A-0065-22
                                        19
condition, and to avoid creating conditions that would render the premises

unsafe.'" Troupe v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 443 N.J. Super.

596, 601 (App. Div. 2016) (quoting Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens, Inc., 175 N.J.

559, 563 (2003)).

        Thus, "an invitee seeking to hold a business proprietor liable in negligence

'must prove, as an element of the cause of action, that the defendant had actual

or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition that caused the accident. '"

Prioleau, 223 N.J. at 257 (quoting Nisivoccia, 175 N.J. at 563). "A defendant

has constructive notice when the condition existed 'for such a length of time as

reasonably to have resulted in knowledge and correction had the defendant been

reasonably diligent.'" Troupe, 443 N.J. Super. at 602 (quoting Parmenter v.

Jarvis Drug Store, Inc., 48 N.J. Super. 507, 510 (App. Div. 1957)). Constructive

notice may be inferred from "[t]he characteristics of the dangerous condition."

Ibid.

        We are satisfied the trial court properly determined plaintiff presented

sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue as to whether the fire extinguisher was a

dangerous condition and whether Walmart had constructive notice.             Cuzzo

acknowledged the fire extinguisher encroached into the side aisle where plaintiff

encountered it. He further stated that it would not have been appropriate to move

                                                                              A-0065-22
                                        20
it to the side of the beam facing the main aisle because Walmart generally tries

to keep those aisles as "free from obstructions as possible."

      Based on these facts, a jury could conclude this suggests that a hazardous

condition could be created if the fire extinguisher, encroaching as it does into

the walkway, were placed in any aisle, particularly a narrower side aisle. This,

coupled with the testimony that plaintiff dislodged the extinguisher by "lightly

brush[ing]" against it, when Walmart's employees indicated that it should not

have fallen under such circumstances, is sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue

for the jury as to whether this was a dangerous condition.

      We are further satisfied that when viewing the facts here in a light most

favorable to plaintiff along with all reasonable inferences, there was sufficient

evidence presented to raise a fact issue as to whether Walmart had constructive

notice of the condition. Walmart acknowledged that upon inspection following

the incident, the fire extinguisher's metal harness was warped and therefore was

not in the typical round configuration so that it could sit flush against the

cylinder of the extinguisher. Ferguson also testified the latch on the mount for

the extinguisher easily disengaged. Plaintiff acknowledged there was no direct

evidence of the condition of the harness before the accident, but we agree the

circumstantial evidence raises a reasonable inference that the apparatus securing

                                                                            A-0065-22
                                       21
the extinguisher to the beam was damaged before the accident and could have

been discovered by a reasonable inspection.       Moreover, although Walmart

argued there were no prior similar incidents involving a fire extinguisher being

knocked off a beam, the evidence also showed Walmart kept back-up brackets

in the store. Accordingly, the trial court correctly denied Walmart's motion for

reconsideration for a directed verdict and for a new trial based on the

constructive notice issue.

      Given our decision above regarding the improper jury charge, the jury will

again have to resolve the disputed facts regarding the condition of the fire

extinguisher and determine if the evidence supports the argument that Walmart

had constructive notice of the condition. We agree with the trial court that when

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff along with all

reasonable inferences, there was adequate evidence to withstand a motion for a

new trial or a directed verdict as to the alleged dangerous condition and

constructive notice.

      We next address whether the court erred in not requiring plaintiff to

produce expert testimony as to the alleged dangerous condition and the location

and mounting of the fire extinguisher. "In most negligence cases, the plaintiff

is not required to establish the applicable standard of care." Davis, 219 N.J. at

                                                                           A-0065-22
                                      22
406 (citing Sanzari v. Rosenfeld, 34 N.J. 128, 134 (1961)). In those instances,

"[i]t is sufficient for [the] plaintiff to show what the defendant did and what the

circumstances were. The applicable standard of conduct is then supplied by the

jury[,] which is competent to determine what precautions a reasonably prudent

man in the position of the defendant would have taken." Id. 406-07 (alterations

in original) (quoting Sanzari, 34 N.J. at 134). "Such cases involve facts about

which 'a layperson's common knowledge is sufficient to permit a jury to find

that the duty of care has been breached without the aid of an expert's opinion. '"

Id. at 407 (quoting Giantonnio v. Taccard, 291 N.J. Super. 31, 43 (App. Div.

1996)).

      "In some cases, however, the 'jury is not competent to supply the standard

by which to measure the defendant's conduct,' and the plaintiff must instead

'establish the requisite standard of care and [the defendant's] deviation from that

standard' by 'present[ing] reliable expert testimony on the subject.'"         Ibid.

(alterations in original) (citation omitted) (first quoting Sanzari, 34 N.J. at 134-

35; and then quoting Giantonnio, 291 N.J. at 42); see also N.J.R.E. 702

(permitting expert testimony "[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized

knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine

a fact in issue").

                                                                              A-0065-22
                                        23
      The Supreme Court has explained that "when deciding whether expert

testimony is necessary, a court properly considers 'whether the matter to be dealt

with is so esoteric that jurors of common judgment and experience cannot form

a valid judgment as to whether the conduct of the [defendant] was reasonable. '"

Davis, 219 N.J. at 407 (alteration in original) (quoting Butler v. Acme Mkts.,

Inc., 89 N.J. 270, 283 (1982)); see also Hubbard ex rel. Hubbard v. Reed, 168

N.J. 387, 394 (2001) (quoting Est. of Chin v. St. Barnabas Med. Ctr., 160 N.J.

454, 469 (1999)) (holding expert testimony is not needed under the affidavit of

merit statute when the jury's "common knowledge as lay persons is sufficient to

enable them, using ordinary understanding and experience, to determine a

defendant's negligence"). In cases where "the factfinder would not be expected

to have sufficient knowledge or experience," expert testimony is needed because

the jury "would have to speculate" regarding the standard of care. Torres v.

Schripps, Inc., 342 N.J. Super. 419, 430 (App. Div. 2001).

      We are unconvinced that expert testimony was required under the facts in

this case. The jury here could determine whether Walmart's actions under the

circumstances were reasonable and what precautions it should have taken. The

facts regarding the placement of the fire extinguisher and related inspections to

determine whether it was sufficiently secured to the beam were not so esoteric

                                                                            A-0065-22
                                       24
that jurors would be unable to form a judgment as to whether Walmart's conduct

was reasonable. Accordingly, a jury could determine the applicable standard of

conduct as to the issues raised by the parties.

                                        C.

      Relying primarily on Washington v. Perez, defendant argues plaintiff's

counsel repeatedly urged the jury to draw adverse inferences from defendant's

failures to call certain witnesses to testify or to present certain video evidence.

219 N.J. at 352. Walmart asserts that in doing so, plaintiff did not comply with

clear legal requirements to make an adverse inference argument because

plaintiff's counsel did not give defense counsel, or the court, notice he would be

making such an argument.

      Because we are remanding this case because of an improper jury charge,

there will be a new trial on liability. We do not know what witnesses may be

called or what evidence will be introduced on remand. It may be that many of

the issues raised by Walmart will be moot at the new trial. Given the dynamics

of the new trial will be different, we need not address Walmart's adverse

inference arguments at this juncture. Moreover, if these issues arise again,

                                                                             A-0065-22
                                       25
Walmart may interpose an appropriate objection,6 unlike the first trial, so the

trial court can first address the arguments and create a proper record.        On

remand, the parties and the court shall be guided by Washington and its progeny

to the extent it is applicable.

                                       D.

      Lastly, Walmart argues the trial court should order a new trial on damages

because the verdict of $1,754,135—reduced to $1,317,299.90 based on the jury's

comparative negligence finding—was a miscarriage of justice and should shock

the judicial conscience. Walmart also contends the damages warrant a new trial

because the jury verdict was the result of sympathy, passion, and prejudice.

      More particularly, Walmart asserts plaintiff only suffered a contusion that

developed into a bruise, and not a dislocation or a fracture.      Walmart also

emphasizes the fact that plaintiff was able to move around after the accident,

went home, and took a shower before seeking medical attention is evidence he

6
  "[T]he '[f]ailure to make a timely objection indicates that defense counsel did
not believe the remarks were prejudicial at the time they were made,' and it 'also
deprives the court of the opportunity to take curative action.'" Jackowitz v.
Lang, 408 N.J. Super. 495, 505 (App. Div. 2009) (second alteration in original)
(quoting State v. Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515, 576 (1999)). "Where defense
counsel has not objected, we generally will not reverse unless plain error is
shown." Ibid. (citing R. 2:10–2).

                                                                            A-0065-22
                                       26
was not severely injured. Furthermore, Walmart notes plaintiff's medical bills

only amounted to $26,000, and he has not sought any formal treatment since

2020. Walmart emphasizes its experts—Drs. Mittelman and Park—both found

plaintiff did not have CRPS based on the Budapest Criteria, and his complaints

stemmed from his pre-existing medical conditions.         Walmart also contends

plaintiff's counsel's closing argument (alleging Walmart misrepresented its

efforts to ensure the fire extinguisher did not pose a danger) inflamed the jury

and caused them to lose objectivity.

      "Judicial review of the correctness of a jury's damages award requires that

the trial record be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs." Cuevas, 226

N.J. at 488. "When a court is persuaded that a new trial must be granted based

solely on the excessiveness of the jury's damages award, it has the power to enter

a remittitur reducing the award to the highest amount that could be sustained by

the evidence." Id. at 499. Courts "must exercise the power of remittitur with

great restraint." Ibid. "A jury's verdict, including an award of damages, is

cloaked with a 'presumption of correctness,'" which "is not overcome unless a

defendant can establish, 'clearly and convincingly,' that the award is 'a

miscarriage of justice.'" Id. at 501 (quoting Baxter, 74 N.J. at 596, 598). "[E]ven

a seemingly high award should not be disturbed; only if the award is one no

                                                                             A-0065-22
                                       27
rational jury could have returned, one so grossly excessive, so wide of the mark

and pervaded by a sense of wrongness that it shocks the judicial conscience,

should a court grant a remittitur." Id. at 500.

      The standard for "setting aside a verdict already sustained by the trial

judge is high." Horn v. Vill. Supermarkets, Inc., 260 N.J. Super. 165, 178 (App.

Div. 1992). Neither a trial judge nor we may reweigh the evidence and impose

a new verdict simply because they disagree with the jury's decision. Battista v.

Olson, 213 N.J. Super. 137, 142 (App. Div. 1986).           "Only when[,] upon

examination[,] the verdict is found to be so contrary to the weight of the

evidence as to give rise to the inescapable conclusion that it is the result of

mistake, passion, prejudice or partiality, may it be disturbed." Aiello v. Myzie,

88 N.J. Super. 187, 194 (App. Div. 1965). "Furthermore, jury verdicts should

be set aside in favor of new trials only with reluctance and then only in the cases

of clear injustice." Crego v. Carp, 295 N.J. Super. 565, 577 (App. Div. 1996);

R. 4:49-1(a).

      We accord appropriate deference to the trial court's "feel of the case,"

Baxter, 74 N.J. at 600, and will not reverse a trial judge's decision on whether

the jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence "unless it clearly appears

that there was a miscarriage of justice under the law." R. 2:10-1; Caldwell v.

                                                                             A-0065-22
                                       28
Haynes, 136 N.J. 422, 432 (1994). Additionally, the jury's damage assessment

is entitled to a presumption of correctness and should stand "unless it is so

disproportionate to the injury and resulting disability shown as to shock [the

judicial] conscience and to convince [the court] that to sustain the award would

be manifestly unjust." Baxter, 74 N.J. at 596. "This conception of the weight

of the evidence governs the trial court as well as the appellate court; and it

applies to civil and criminal causes." Hager v. Weber, 7 N.J. 201, 210 (1951).

      Here, the award was not so grossly excessive that it shocks the judicial

conscience. The jury had the opportunity to assess the credibility of several

competing witnesses. Viewing the record in a light most favorably to plaintiff,

there was sufficient evidence to support the damages award.       Although we

recognize plaintiff's damages were contested by Walmart, Dr. Markbreiter's

testimony regarding the permanency and debilitating nature of CRPS, coupled

with plaintiff's testimony about his severe and enduring pain—in the context of

a near twenty-year life expectancy—leads us to conclude the verdict was amply

supported by the record and not the result of mistake, passion, prejudice, or

partiality.

      Furthermore, the jury was free to accept or reject the testimony of

Walmart's experts. We would also note, on the issue of liability, the jury found

                                                                          A-0065-22
                                      29
plaintiff to be twenty-six percent negligent in causing the accident, dispelling

any notion the jury lost "its objectivity" as argued by Walmart. We also are

unpersuaded plaintiff's counsel's comments on closing were so inappropriate

that they inflamed the jury. In short, there was more than a sufficient record to

support the jury's determination, and we discern no basis to disturb the damages

verdict. Although we remand for a new trial on liability, we affirm the jury's

verdict on damages.

      To the extent we have not specifically addressed any remaining arguments

raised on appeal, we conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in

a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

      Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial on liability

only. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                                             A-0065-22
                                       30