The New Jersey Appellate Court recently considered whether a plaintiff was required to present expert testimony to support her claim. In Lazarus v. Port Authority of New York, et al, the plaintiff claimed that an elevator at the Newark Path train station moved 3-4 inches from the platform as she stepped inside. Maintenance records revealed that there were prior issues with the same elevator.

Plaintiff served an expert report on the issue of liability, but it was stricken as a net opinion (based on speculation). The court then granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff could not prove negligence without an expert opinion. On appeal, the court reversed and held that an expert opinion was not required since the plaintiff could proceed under a theory of res ipsa loquitor, literally “the thing speaks for itself” (i.e. the kind of thing that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone’s negligence).” In addition, the Court found that the cause of the alleged malfunction was not so complex or specialized that a juror would not be able to understand it without an expert witness.

Do not assume that a plaintiff is required to present expert testimony to succeed on their claim. Rather, a plaintiff can sometimes rely on the common knowledge and experience of the fact-finder to deduce what happened without an expert’s opinion.

Thanks to Heather Aquino for her contribution to this post.