TRENTON, N.J. (Legal Newsline) – The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division has upheld a summary judgment ruling in favor of Shop-Rite Supermarkets Inc. in a wrongful death lawsuit.
The appeals court determined June 4 the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey used its discretion properly in its ruling in granting the defendant summary judgment considering the plaintiff didn’t provide an expert for evidence an incident caused the decedent’s passing.
It stated special hearsay regulations in the New Jersey Rules of Evidence and the “net opinion” policy as reasons for confirming the trial court’s decision to not include the certificate of death.
William Quail's lawsuit against Shop-Rite was on behalf of the estate of his late wife Mary K. Quail. He filed an appeal to challenge the trial court's following rulings: to remove from evidence a certificate of death that was provided after a county deputy medical examiner’s evaluations, to deny the plaintiff a reopening and longer period of discovery so he could include the medical examiner’s report and to grant summary judgment to dismiss William’s claims, the court stated.
The ruling states the decedent was injured while driving a motorized cart in one of the defendant’s stores. She ran into a cash register station and it fell on her, hurting her leg. The court states she said she was "fine," but she was admitted to the hospital four days later and died the next morning. The medical examiner later ruled her death an accident caused by “complications of blunt trauma of [the] right lower extremity,” according to the ruling.
When it comes to the trial court’s decision to ban the plaintiff from reopening discovery and trying to use the medical examiner’s report as another method to prove cause of death, the appeals court determined whether the lower court abused its discretion.
It decided it did not considering the plaintiff didn’t request to extend the discovery period before the trial date was scheduled. It also pointed out the plaintiff didn’t receive the medical examiner’s report until after discovery ended and the defendant motioned for summary judgment.
In considering the trial court’s ruling to grant summary judgment, the appeals court agreed with the trial court that the plaintiff needed a medical expert to prove a link between the incident at Shop-Rite and the decedent’s passing. It affirmed the trial court’s ruling on all issues.