Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mann v. Harris

January 5, 2009

GARY MANN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
MICHAEL HARRIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND SOCIETY HILL @UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, III, AND IMPAC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. SC 2385-07.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted November 10, 2008

Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Alvarez.

Defendant Michael Harris (Harris) appeals from a verdict awarded after a bench trial finding him liable for payment of $2,675 jointly and severally with defendants Society Hill at University Heights III (the condominium association) and Impac Property Management (Impac), the firm that manages the condominium property. For the reasons that follow, we reverse as to Harris.

Harris raises the following issues on appeal:

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT MISINTERPRETED THE LAW GOVERNING A NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT BREACH A DUTY OF CARE AND PROXIMATELY CAUSE INJURY TO THE PLAINTIFF.

A. THE COURT BELOW APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR TO THE EVIDENCE ADMITTED AND IMPERMISSIBLY SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO DEFENDANTS.

In May 2007, plaintiff Gary Mann learned from his tenant at 37 Woodcliff Street in Newark that the bathroom ceiling in his apartment had collapsed due to a water leak originating from the upstairs unit owned by Harris. On May 5, 2007, plaintiff was admitted into Harris's unit to attempt to locate the source of the leak. Plaintiff saw that the bathing facilities in the upstairs unit were not immediately above his apartment and could not determine the source of the leak. Plumbers were eventually called, but they could not pinpoint the source of the leak without opening the walls of Harris's unit. As a result, although a temporary repair was made, no permanent repair has been possible. As the trial judge described, plaintiff has "a tube hanging through his ceiling." The cost to temporarily repair the leak was $1,425, and plaintiff lost rental income totaling $1250, for total damages of $2,675.

The following month, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Small Claims Section of the Special Civil Part. A bench trial commenced on September 25, 2007. Because plaintiff was pro se, the matter was adjourned to afford him an opportunity to retain counsel and to file an amended complaint naming the condominium association as a defendant. The matter was tried to conclusion on December 12, 2007. On February 1, 2008, the trial court denied Harris's motion for a new trial as well as reconsideration of its prior decision.

Harris contends in this appeal, as he did unsuccessfully before the trial court, that Siddons v. Cook, 382 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2005), exempts him from liability. In accord with the doctrine set forth in that opinion, we find that plaintiff did not factually establish either that Harris breached his duty of care to plaintiff or that he proximately caused the damage.

In Siddons, plaintiff owned a condominium unit that was flooded when a dishwasher hose malfunctioned in the apartment next door. Id. at 5. Siddons sued the unit owners, the Cooks, as well as the condominium association, for the resulting damage. Ibid. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's claim by way of summary judgment, finding that the Cooks were neither strictly liable nor negligent. The trial court also found that the condominium association had no duty to warn plaintiff about the potential flooding hazard, even though the association had prior knowledge of the risk. Ibid. We reversed as to the condominium association, reasoning that it did have a duty to warn plaintiff about the known risk. Id. at 10.

Despite imposing liability on the condominium association, we did not hold the unit owners liable. Id. at 14. Because the owners were unaware of any leakage, we concluded that no reasonable jury could find them negligent. Id. at 13-14. Even though the unit owners had a duty to inspect and maintain, the claimant was nonetheless required to establish that a breach ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.