New Jersey Appellate Division finds that plaintiff’s lack of specificity as to causation does not entitle the defendant to summary judgment.

The New Jersey Appellate Division, in an unpublished decision, reversed the order of the Atlantic County trial court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division holds that the record established triable issues of fact on whether the condition of the sidewalk caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff, Karen Walter, claimed personal injuries while riding her bike—she allegedly struck an object on the sidewalk and fell over the handlebars. At her deposition, the plaintiff gave conflicting accounts about what caused her accident and admitted that she did not know exactly what caused her to lose control of her bike. In an effort to rehabilitate this testimony, the plaintiff subsequently submitted an affidavit stating that she did not know the mechanics of what caused her to fall, but that the front tire of the bike struck a “metal cover.” On inspection, the plaintiff’s liability expert observed two obstructions on the sidewalk: an abandoned water service box and an abandoned sewer cleanout box, which created protrusions in the sidewalk and caused the plaintiff’s accident. The defendants argued on summary judgment that the: (1) plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the boxes were the cause of her fall because she did not testify as to how the accident occurred; and (2) plaintiff could not proceed to trial unless she could say what caused her to fall, whether she noticed the defect before or after the incident. The Appellate Court disagreed, holding that the record sufficiently established triable issues as to whether the boxes caused the plaintiff’s fall, due to her testimony that she struck a “hard, possibly metal object and fell between two things,” when taken in conjunction with the plaintiff’s expert report. The Appellate Court reasoned that, while the plaintiff has the burden of proving causation, she does not have to establish it by direct or indisputable evidence and may rely upon legitimate inference, so long as it does not rise to the level of mere speculation.

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2016}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2016 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}