Court Opinion

ID: 9917029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 15:05:29.435129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:54:51.441987
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0022-22

JOHN LONGINETTI,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

OCEAN CASINO RESORT,

     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________

                   Argued September 18, 2023 – Decided January 11, 2024

                   Before Judges Gilson and DeAlmeida.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
                   Atlantic County, Law Division, Docket No. SC-
                   000255-22.

                   Michelle Barbara Cappuccio argued the cause for
                   appellant (Reilly, McDevitt & Henrich, PC, attorneys;
                   Michelle Barbara Cappuccio and Jessica Suzanne
                   Injaian, on the briefs).

                   John Longinetti, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

PER CURIAM
      Defendant Ocean Casino Resort (OCR) appeals from the August 8, 2022

judgment of the Special Civil Part awarding plaintiff John Longinetti monetary

damages for the repair of a broken tooth. We reverse.

                                         I.

      OCR operates a casino in Atlantic City. On March 26, 2022, Longinetti

was a patron at the casino. He was served a virgin bloody mary while gambling

at slot machines on the casino floor. The drink was prepared with non-skewered

olives stuffed with pimentos. Unbeknownst to Longinetti, one of the olives had

a pit. When Longinetti poured that olive into his mouth and bit down, his tooth

broke. OCR subsequently refused to reimburse Longinetti for the expenses he

incurred at the dentist to repair his tooth.

      On June 27, 2022, Longinetti filed a complaint in the Special Civil Part

alleging OCR's negligence caused the injury to his tooth.        The complaint

demanded $1,058.13, plus costs.

      Longinetti was the only witness at trial. He testified that "normally" OCR

served a virgin bloody mary with three or four stuffed olives with a skewer

through the olives. However, on the day in question,

             the olives were floating in the cup; they weren't on a
             pick, so I had to like try to drink them out of the cup
             and you eat them that way, and, when I bit the one, it
             had a pit in it, which is weird, because I probably had

                                                                          A-0022-22
                                          2
            thousands of olives and never had one with a pit, but
            this one happened to have a pit in it. It broke my tooth.

Longinetti explained that "my contention is that the bartender preparing the

drink should have skewered the olives and would have known there was a pit in

the olive and thrown it away. I wouldn't have had . . . this problem."

      OCR denied liability and suggested Longinetti contact Driscoll Foods

(Driscoll), the vendor from whom OCR purchased the olives used to prepare his

drink. After an initial conversation with a representative of Driscoll, Longinetti

elected not to pursue damages against that entity on a theory of product liability.1

      Longinetti testified that his tooth was repaired at a cost of $1,578.50, of

which $695.50 was paid by insurance. Longinetti, therefore, paid $883 out of

pocket to repair his tooth.2 He testified that "I just want to be paid . . . my

expenses that I put out for my tooth that wasn't covered by insurance." 3

1
  In summation, OCR's counsel said that "[t]he olives at issue were advertised
as pimento-stuffed[,] clean-pitted olives ordered from Driscoll Foods." There
was, however, no evidence in the record supporting that statement.
2
  Longinetti was not questioned with respect to the inconsistent demand in the
complaint for $1,058.13.
3
  Longinetti also sought $42.63 for the cost of an ink cartridge he purchased for
his printer to produce correspondence and pleadings related to his claim. The
court declined to award Longinetti any damages related to the ink cartridge.
                                                                              A-0022-22
                                         3
      At the conclusion of the trial, the court issued an oral opinion , which, in

its entirety, provided:

             [c]ounsel's argument is unique, perhaps correct that it's
             a products liability (sic), but it's also a negligence
             matter. And [OCR] was certainly capable of including
             as a party, a third-party defendant, the maker of the
             olives, Driscoll . . . . Failing to do that, [OCR] would
             be the only one liable.

             I find there was negligence. Evidently – and I learned
             something about [b]lood [m]ary[s] -- . . . but evidently
             they are made with skewers and this one somehow the
             bartender missed it. I don't think it was on purpose.

             So I'm going to find in favor of the plaintiff and enter
             judgment . . . .

The court found that Longinetti was entitled to $1,546, which it determined to

be the cost of the dental work, including the amounts paid by Longinetti's

insurance carrier.4 The court rejected OCR's argument that the award should be

reduced by the amount covered by insurance, reasoning that "[i]t's not a

deduction, because he does pay for his insurance." The court also awarded costs.

An August 8, 2022 judgment memorializes the court's decision.

      This appeal followed. OCR argues: (1) there is no support in the record,

other than Longinetti's testimony regarding his experience being served drinks

4
  It is not clear how the court arrived at $1,546, as the evidence established that
the total cost of repairing Longinetti's tooth was $1,578.50.
                                                                             A-0022-22
                                        4
at OCR, for the trial court's conclusion that OCR had a duty to use skewered,

pitted olives to prepare a virgin bloody mary; (2) Longinetti was required to

name Driscoll as a defendant under the entire controversy doctrine; (3) the trial

court unjustly precluded OCR from impleading Driscoll as a third -party

defendant; and (4) the trial court erred by permitting Longinetti to recover

damages duplicative of benefits he received from his insurance carrier contrary

to N.J.S.A. 2A:15-97.

                                        II.

      Our scope of review of the judge's findings in this nonjury trial is limited.

We must defer to the judge's factual determinations, so long as they are

supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. Rova Farms Resort,

Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974).           This court's

"[a]ppellate review does not consist of weighing evidence anew and making

independent factual findings; rather, [this court's] function is to determine

whether there is adequate evidence to support the judgment rendered at trial."

Cannuscio v. Claridge Hotel & Casino, 319 N.J. Super. 342, 347 (App. Div.

1999).   However, "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal

consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special

deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).

                                                                             A-0022-22
                                        5
      We have carefully reviewed the record and are constrained to conclude

that the trial court made a legal error requiring reversal of the judgment. "To

sustain a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must establish four elements:

'(1) a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) proximate cause, and (4) actual

damages.'" Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 51 (2015) (quoting Polzo v. Cnty.

of Essex, 196 N.J. 569, 584 (2008)). A "plaintiff bears the burden of establishing

those elements by some competent proof." Davis v. Brickman Landscaping,

Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 406 (2014) (citation and internal quotations omitted).

      The trial court concluded that OCR had a duty to use skewered, pitted

olives to prepare Longinetti's drink. There was, however, no credible evidence

in the record supporting that conclusion. The only evidence relating to the

preparation of a virgin bloody mary was Longinetti's testimony that in his

experience OCR served the drink with skewered, pitted olives. OCR's apparent

past practice of using skewered, pitted olives is not the equivalent of a legal duty

for the casino to use skewered, pitted olives every time it prepares a virgin blood

mary. The record contains no evidence that a virgin bloody mary can be safely

prepared only through the use of skewered, pitted olives, that skewering olives

is the accepted method of ensuring they are pitted, or that serving a virgin bloody

                                                                              A-0022-22
                                         6
mary with an unpitted, non-skewered olive constitutes a breach of duty to a

customer who orders the drink.

      Nor does the record support the trial court's conclusion that OCR's breach

of this purported duty was the cause of Longinetti's injury. Longinetti testified

that he was aware that the olives in his drink on the day in question were not

skewered but were "floating in the cup." Despite his knowledge of what he

claims to be a departure from the required practice of skewering olives to ensure

they are pitted, Longinetti elected to pour the olives from the cup into his mouth

and bite down. Given his admission, he appears to have assumed the risk that

the olives had pits.

      In the absence of evidentiary support for the duty imposed on OCR by the

trial court, and because the court's conclusion that OCR's breach of that

purported duty caused Longinetti's injury is not supported by the record, the

judgment is reversed and vacated. In light of these conclusions, we need not

address the remaining arguments raised by OCR.

      Reversed.

                                                                            A-0022-22
                                        7