A recent New Jersey decision reiterated a basic — but critical — point of proof in a tort case.  A plaintiff in a slip and fall case not only needs to establish the existence of a defect — but also that the defect caused the accident.

In Pintimalli v. Staples, Inc.,  plaintiff was injured after she exited her vehicle in the defendant’s parking lot. Shortly after the accident, the plaintiff’s husband went to the  parking lot and photographed an area that depicted a depression in the pavement. But during plaintiff’s deposition, rather than confirm that she tripped in the area of the alleged defect photographed by her husband, the plaintiff testified that she had tripped in an area not depicted. With that, the defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff could not establish a critical element of her negligence claim —  causation — as a matter of law. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, which the plaintiff then appealed.

In upholding the trial court’s ruling, the critical question addressed by the Appellate Court was: Did the allegedly defective condition portrayed in the photographs taken by the plaintiff’s husband proximately cause the plaintiff’s accident and injury? Typically, this issue is one of fact and is reserved for the jury, not one of law to be decided by a judge.

However, the Appellate Court agreed with the trial court’s holding, that in order to reach the jury, a plaintiff must first introduce evidence supporting a reasonable basis for the conclusion that the defendant’s conduct caused that plaintiff’s injuries. Here, the plaintiff was unable to satisfy this burden. While the depression in the parking lot pavement may have been a defect which the defendant negligently allowed to exist, the plaintiff’s testimony that her accident did not occur at the area of the depression doomed her case.

Thanks to Emily Kidder for her contribution to this post.  For more information, write to Mike Bono.