TRENTON, N.J. (Legal Newsline) - A New Jersey appeals court upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit by a Virginia resident who sued the distributor of an exercise bar that collapsed in the home of a friend in Hawaii and left her with a broken back and lasting injuries.
Kathryn Nikirk sued ConductTV Brands and Ontel Products Corp. after she was injured using the Iron Gym Xtreme Total Upper Body Workout Bar owned by her friend Felepe Barrios. Nikirk accused the New Jersey companies of selling a defective product, which hangs from a doorway and can be used for a variety of exercises.
The trial court dismissed the case after Ontel argued it didn’t sell the device in Hawaii and it had determined the Iron Gym in question “had gone through `numerous alterations.’”
“These changes included a crossbar that was assembled upside-down, a broken plastic connector securing the two steel crossbars in the middle of the Iron Gym with two-thirds of it missing, several bolts missing and numerous other faults,” according to court records.
Nikirk sued in 2016 and subsequently moved from Hawaii to Virginia, but didn’t disclose the location of the accident or the fact that Barrios owned the home and the Iron Gym until May 21, 2019. The trial judge dismissed her case, saying the defendants had the right to include Barrios in any negligence action in New Jersey, since he owned the device and presumably had modified it.
Since a New Jersey court wouldn’t have jurisdiction over Barrios, the judge concluded, if Nikirk wanted to continue the suit, she could file it in Hawaii and join Barrios to the action.
Nikirk argued there was no need to include Barrios since New Jersey is a strict-negligence state, where Ontel and ConducTV could be liable for selling a defective product regardless of who modified it later. The court disagreed, saying plaintiffs still have to prove causation, and that question hinged upon whether her injuries were actually caused by the modifications Barrios made to the Iron Gym. The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate division agreed.
“The installation and modification of the Iron Gym is central to causation, so adjudicating the case in New Jersey would require adjudging Barrios's negligence, or lack of negligence, in his absence,” the court ruled.
“Although defendants would be permitted to assert an `empty chair’ defense against Barrios …it may be difficult for them to obtain evidence of the specifications of Barrios' door jamb, and obtain his testimony, since there is no evidence Barrios is subject to New Jersey court jurisdiction,” the court concluded.