NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0305-15T4
JOSE CONTRERAS MORALES, BY AND
THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM,
LILIANA MORALES FERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant/
Cross-Respondent,
v.
SUSSEX COUNTY COMMUNITY
COLLEGE AND SOPHIE DUTKOWSKI,
Defendants-Respondents/
Cross-Appellants,
and
CARROLL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant-Respondent/
Cross-Respondent,
and
FIDEL RODRIGUEZ AND CAMPBELL'S
SMALL ENGINE SALES AND SERVICE,
INC.,
Defendants.
_______________________________
Argued May 17, 2017 – Decided August 30, 2017
Before Judges Fuentes, Simonelli and Carroll.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Sussex County, Docket
No. L-0320-13.
Edward P. Capozzi argued the cause for
appellant/cross-repondent (Brach Eichler,
LLC, attorneys; Mr. Capozzi and Kristofer C.
Petrie, on the briefs).
Jeffrey L. Shanaberger argued the cause for
respondents/cross-appellants Sussex County
Community College and Sophie Dutkowski (Hill
Wallack LLP, attorneys; Mr. Shanaberger, on
the briefs).
Allen Hantman argued the cause for respondent/
cross-respondent Carroll Services, Inc.
(Morris & Hantman, attorneys; Mr. Hantman, on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Jose Contreras Morales, a landscaping employee of
defendant Carroll Services, Inc. (Carroll), sustained serious
injuries during his second season performing landscaping services
at the campus of defendant Sussex County Community College (SCCC).
At the time of the accident, plaintiff was driving a SCCC-owned
John Deere X300 residential riding tractor/lawnmower (the mower)
down a descending grade of a paved roadway on the campus when the
left rear axle suddenly and unexpectedly broke, causing the left
rear wheel to come off. Plaintiff was ejected forward onto the
roadway and the mower landed on top of him.
2 A-0305-15T4
Plaintiff advanced two theories of liability against SCCC:
(1) negligent training on how to use the mower; and (2) creation
of a dangerous condition on SCCC's premises by providing him with
improper equipment (a residential mower instead of a
commercial/industrial mower) that was unsuitable for the campus
terrain. The New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-
3, governs plaintiff's claims against SCCC.
Plaintiff appeals from the August 12, 2015 Law Division order,
which granted summary judgment to SCCC and dismissed the amended
complaint and all cross-claims against it with prejudice.1 SCCC
cross-appeals from the October 28, 2015 order, which denied its
motion to vacate dismissal of its cross-claim against Carroll. We
affirm the August 12, 2015 order, reverse the October 28, 2015
order, and remand for further proceedings regarding the dismissal
of SCCC's cross-claim.
I.
We derive the following facts from evidence submitted by the
parties in support of, and in opposition to, the summary judgment
1
Plaintiff also appealed from the grant of summary judgment to
defendant Sophia Dutkowski, SCCC's head custodian, but does not
address that dismissal in his merit brief. Accordingly, all issues
relating to Dutkowski are deemed waived. N.J. Dep't of Envtl.
Prot. v. Alloway Twp., 438 N.J. Super. 501, 505-06 n.2 (App. Div.),
certif. denied, 222 N.J. 17 (2015); Pressler & Verniero, Current
N.J. Court Rules, comment 5 on R. 2:6-2 (2017).
3 A-0305-15T4
motion, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Angland
v. Mountain Creek Resort, Inc., 213 N.J. 573, 577 (2013) (citing
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995)).
On April 1, 2011, SCCC contracted with Carroll to provide
janitorial services to its campus buildings. The contract
specified that Carroll was an independent contractor exercising
complete control over its employees. The contract required Carroll
to maintain all forms of insurance required by New Jersey law and
name SCCC as an additional insured. The contract also required
Carroll to indemnify and hold SCCC harmless for all damages,
losses, claims, suits, actions, and judgments that arose as a
result, in whole or in part, of the breach of the contract,
professional negligence, intentional acts, omissions, or other
failures of Carroll to perform.
SCCC also contracted with Carroll to provide experienced
temporary personnel to perform outside landscaping services at the
campus, whom SCCC direct and supervise. This was the first time
Carroll provided landscaping services. It did not provide any
landscaping equipment for its employees to use at SCCC.
Carroll required persons hired to work at SCCC to have
experience in performing landscaping services. Carroll's manager,
Fidel Rodriguez, interviewed and hired plaintiff, who represented
he had prior landscaping experience. In 2011, Carroll assigned
4 A-0305-15T4
plaintiff and another employee, Victor Lugo, to perform
landscaping services at SCCC. Plaintiff's job was to mow lawns
on campus, using SCCC's mower. SCCC had purchased the mower new
in 2008 from Campbell's Small Engine Sales & Service, Inc.
(Campbell's). Campbell's also proactively serviced and maintained
the mower on a regular basis. Campbell's last serviced and road-
tested the mower on April 24, 2012, found no problem with the left
rear axle, and did not bring any problem with the axle to SCCC's
attention.2
Thomas Taylor, a SCCC building and grounds maintenance
employee, instructed plaintiff and Lugo on how to use the mower.
Although plaintiff spoke Spanish, Taylor was able to communicate
with him relying on Lugo to act as an interpreter. After giving
Lugo the operator's manual, which was written in English, Taylor
instructed the men how to check the oil, fluids, and belts, and
start the mower. The three men then went out into the parking lot
by the garage, where plaintiff and Lugo drove the mower under
Taylor's supervision. Taylor also showed them how to use the
mower deck, and had them mow grassy areas by the garage to confirm
they were able to perform their duties correctly. Thereafter,
2
Plaintiff originally named Campbell's as a defendant in this
matter, but voluntarily dismissed all claims against it with
prejudice.
5 A-0305-15T4
plaintiff used the mower to mow around trees and areas closer to
the buildings, while Taylor used a commercial tractor to mow bigger
lawn sections of the campus. Taylor also directed plaintiff to
mow the grass sideways on the hill, rather than up and down, which
was contrary to the instructions in the operator's manual. Prior
to June 12, 2012, plaintiff used the mower numerous times without
incident; there was no evidence he operated the mower improperly
at any time.
Carroll again assigned plaintiff to perform landscaping
services at SCCC's campus in 2012. On June 21, 2012, plaintiff
was driving the mower down a paved roadway on the campus when he
was ejected onto the roadway and the mower landed on top of him.
There were no witnesses to the accident. An SCCC custodian was
the first person to come upon the scene. He lifted the mower from
plaintiff's chest and head and then ran to have someone call
9-1-1. Plaintiff suffered numerous skull fractures and a traumatic
brain injury. He never regained consciousness and has remained
in a coma since the accident.
In a written report, plaintiff's landscaping expert, Chris
James, opined that two factors directly contributed to the
accident: (1) little to no training on the proper use of the mower;
and (2) the lack of an ongoing training program to reinforce proper
equipment use and safe operation. He stated that "[a] short,
6 A-0305-15T4
onetime training does not address the questions and concerns of
an untrained operator, nor proves the operator has reached a level
of safe operation or proficiency with a piece of equipment." He
also noted that Taylor showed a high level of incompetence to
train anyone in safe lawnmower operation when he incorrectly
instructed plaintiff to mow grassy hills from side-to-side when
they should be mowed up and down.
Significantly, James did not opine as to how the lack of
training or an ongoing training program actually caused or
contributed to the accident, which occurred while plaintiff was
riding the mower down a paved road, not mowing grassy hills side-
to-side. He did not issue a supplemental report or certification
expanding his opinion.3
Plaintiff's accident reconstruction expert, Steven M. Schorr,
P.E., found the mower deck was replaced at three years when
normally it would last for ten years, and the mower was used well
in excess of seventy-five-hours-per-year, which was normal usage.
While he opined these two factors showed the mower was being used
3
SCCC did not depose James. Plaintiff argues on appeal that had
SCCC done so, James would have expanded his opinion to include
that the mower had no brake pedals and SCCC's failure to instruct
him not to drive the mower down the steep roadway contributed to
the accident. However, SCCC was not required to depose James, and
there was evidence that contradicts plaintiff's claim the mower
lacked brake pedals.
7 A-0305-15T4
in ways other than its intended purpose and design, he did not
opine how they caused or contributed to the accident.
Schorr noted that at the time of the accident, plaintiff was
driving the mower on a roadway with an extremely steep grade. He
saw scrapes/gouges in the roadway that appeared to be fresh and
were located approximately thirty-five feet from where the mower
came to rest at the bottom of the roadway. He noted that the
scrapes/gouges were physical evidence consistent with a failure
of the mower's axle. He concluded that the mower's left rear axle
failed, which caused the left rear wheel assembly to separate and
the mower to rotate in a counterclockwise direction while
continuing onward, ejecting plaintiff forward onto the roadway.
Schorr opined in his written report that the accident occurred
as the result of a combination of the severity of the downgrade
of the roadway and failure of the left rear axle. However, he
testified at deposition that the roadway's slope varied from a
higher grade of 21.6% at the top to a lower grade of 0.8% at the
bottom, and admitted he could not determine the slope at the point
where the axle failed or whether it failed at the top of the
roadway or closer to the bottom. He also admitted the
scrapes/gouges were located at a grade of plus or minus three
percent; he was not opining that the slope of the downgrade caused
the axle to fail; and he did not know if the grade of the roadway
8 A-0305-15T4
was a factor in the happening of the accident. He also admitted
that while slope would have an effect on plaintiff's ability to
maintain control of the mower once the axle failed, he could not
identify where on the roadway plaintiff lost control of the mower.
He also could not determine the speed plaintiff was traveling when
the axle failed, and did not know what actions plaintiff took when
it failed.
Unlike James and Schorr, SCCC's accident reconstruction
expert, Stephen N. Emolo, P.E., inspected the preserved mower and
examined the operator's manual. He found the mower had a braking
system that included a brake pedal, and the mower was in proper
working order prior to the accident. He noted that once the left
rear axle failed, the left rear wheel separated from the mower and
rendered the brakes inoperable. He opined that the axle's failure
was unexpected and could not have been anticipated or prevented
by any type of service or maintenance procedures. He also opined
that because plaintiff was not mowing grass at the time of the
accident, the alleged lack of training had no bearing on the type
of failure that occurred to the axle.
Unlike James and Schorr, Emolo also reviewed the operator's
manual. He noted that the mower was sold to both commercial and
residential users and the operator's manual did not prescribe any
special training. Based on his review of the operator's manual,
9 A-0305-15T4
he opined there was no evidence that SCCC or plaintiff improperly
used the mower for anything other than mowing grass; the mower was
being properly used for that purpose; and the fact that the mower
was being driven on hilly terrain did not render its use improper.
He also found there was no evidence that prohibited the mower from
being driven straight down a steep incline, and there were no
special operating instructions to drive the mower in that manner.
Emolo found no evidence that the alleged severity of the
slope or downgrade played a causal role or was a contributing
factor in the axle's failure or plaintiff's accident. He noted
that based on the location of the scrapes/gouges, the axle failed
at the bottom of the descending grade of the roadway where the
grade was only approximately three percent. It is undisputed that
the cause of the axle failure is unknown.
Following the completion of discovery, SCCC filed a motion
for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff could not prove his
causation under either of his theories of liability. In a written
statement of reasons, citing Cassano v. Aschoff, 226 N.J. Super.
110 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 113 N.J. 371 (1988), the motion
judge found SCCC had no duty to train plaintiff because a
landowner's liability does not extend to employees of an
independent contractor whose injuries arose from the risks
inherent in the work they were hired to perform. The judge found
10 A-0305-15T4
SCCC properly assumed that plaintiff was appropriately trained and
possessed sufficient knowledge and skill to safely perform the
work of a landscaper.
Because the cause of the axle failure was unknown, the judge
rejected plaintiff's theory that overuse of the mower was the
cause. The judge also held that plaintiff could not sustain a
claim under N.J.S.A. 59:4-2 based on a dangerous condition of
SCCC's property. The judge found there was no evidence the roadway
was in a dangerous condition or played a causal role in the
accident; no expert opined that SCCC's property amounted to a
dangerous condition; and there was no evidence that any alleged
dangerous condition of the roadway was a proximate cause of the
accident. The judge emphasized that the location where the axle
failed was unknown.
Lastly, the judge found it was undisputed that equipment
failure was the cause of the accident. The judge concluded that
plaintiff failed to establish a nexus between speculation as to
what may have contributed to the accident and the actual cause of
equipment failure.
On appeal, plaintiff contends that SCCC assumed a duty to
train him and he produced sufficient evidence to prove negligent
training. Plaintiff also argues he produced sufficient evidence
to prove that SCCC created a dangerous condition on its premises
11 A-0305-15T4
by providing improper equipment that was unsuitable for the
terrain.4
Our review of a ruling on summary judgment is de novo,
applying the same legal standard as the trial court. Templo Fuente
De Vida Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 224 N.J. 189, 199
(2016) (citation omitted). Thus, we consider, as the trial judge
did, "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to
require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that
one party must prevail as a matter of law." Liberty Surplus Ins.
Corp. v. Nowell Amoroso, P.A., 189 N.J. 436, 445-46 (2007) (quoting
Brill, supra, 142 N.J. at 536). Summary judgment must be granted
"if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged
and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a
matter of law." Templo Fuente, supra, 224 N.J. at 179 (quoting
R. 4:46-2(c)). If there is no genuine issue of material fact, we
4
We decline to address plaintiff's additional argument that
landowner liability does not extend to employees of independent
contractors when the landowner retains control over the means and
methods of the work. Plaintiff did not raise this argument before
the motion judge and it is not jurisdictional in nature nor does
it substantially implicate the public interest. Zaman v. Felton,
219 N.J. 199, 226-27 (2014) (citation omitted). For the same
reason, and because plaintiff never pled it as a cause of action,
we decline to address his argument that he presented sufficient
evidence to prove negligent misrepresentation.
12 A-0305-15T4
must then "decide whether the trial court correctly interpreted
the law." DepoLink Court Reporting & Litig. Support Servs. v.
Rochman, 430 N.J. Super. 325, 333 (App. Div. 2013) (citation
omitted). We review issues of law de novo and accord no deference
to the trial judge's legal conclusions. Nicholas v. Mynster, 213
N.J. 463, 478 (2013). Applying these standards, we discern no
reason to reverse the grant of summary judgment.
II.
The issue of causation is ordinarily left to the factfinder.
Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 60 (2015) (citation omitted).
That rule, however, is not absolute, and the issue of proximate
cause "may be removed from the factfinder in the highly
extraordinary case in which reasonable minds could not differ on
whether that issue has been established." Ibid. (citation
omitted). "Thus, in the unusual setting in which no reasonable
factfinder could find that the plaintiff has proven causation by
a preponderance of the evidence, summary judgment may be granted
dismissing the plaintiff's claim." Ibid. To prove causation,
plaintiff bears the burden to:
introduce evidence which affords a reasonable
basis for the conclusion that it is more
likely than not that the conduct of the
defendant was a cause in fact of the result.
A mere possibility of such causation is not
enough; and when the matter remains one of
pure speculation or conjecture, or the
13 A-0305-15T4
probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it
becomes the duty of the court to direct a
verdict for the defendant.
[Id. at 60-61 (citation omitted).]
Plaintiff cannot prove his negligent training claim. Even
assuming SCCC had a duty to train or voluntarily assumed that
duty, there is no evidence that negligent training was a proximate
cause of the accident. The operator's manual did not prescribe
any special training and there is no evidence of any training that
would have prevented the accident. Plaintiff was not mowing grass
at the time of the accident, and there was no evidence of operator
error that led to the axle failure or caused the accident.
More importantly, it was undisputed that the unexpected
mechanical failure of the left rear axle was the cause of the
accident, and its cause was unknown. The mower was last serviced
less than two months before the accident, and there were no
reported problems with the axle. In light of this, plaintiff
cannot demonstrate how any alleged overuse or misuse due to
negligent training played a role in the axle's failure or the
accident itself.
Plaintiff also cannot prove that SCCC created a dangerous
condition on its premises. This claim is governed by N.J.S.A.
59:4-2, which provides as follows:
14 A-0305-15T4
A public entity is liable for injury caused
by a condition of its property if the
plaintiff establishes that the property was
in dangerous condition at the time of the
injury, that the injury was proximately caused
by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous
condition created a reasonably foreseeable
risk of the kind of injury which was incurred,
and that either:
a. a negligent or wrongful act or omission
of an employee of the public entity within the
scope of his employment created the dangerous
condition; or
b. a public entity had actual or
constructive notice of the dangerous condition
under [N.J.S.A.] 59:4-3 a sufficient time
prior to the injury to have taken measures to
protect against the dangerous condition.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to
impose liability upon a public entity for a
dangerous condition of its public property if
the action the entity took to protect against
the condition or the failure to take such
action was not palpably unreasonable.
A "dangerous condition" is a "condition of property that
creates a substantial risk of injury when such property is used
with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable
that it will be used." N.J.S.A. 59:4-1(a). A substantial risk
of injury is a risk that is not minor, trivial, or insignificant.
Polyard v. Terry, 160 N.J. Super. 497, 509 (App. Div. 1978), aff'd,
79 N.J. 547 (1979). The dangerous condition "must be inherent in
the property[,]" Weiser v. County of Ocean, 326 N.J. Super. 194,
200 (App. Div. 1999), which will not be considered dangerous if
15 A-0305-15T4
the condition only exists when the property is used without due
care. Garrison v. Twp. of Middletown, 154 N.J. 282, 287 (1998).
"Used with due care" refers to an objectively reasonable standard
of the general public, not to the injured party. Id. at 291.
Whether a dangerous condition exists "depends on whether the
property creates a substantial risk of injury to persons generally
who would use the property with due care in a foreseeable manner."
Ibid. (citation omitted).
Plaintiff now concedes that the roadway itself was not an
inherently dangerous condition. Although Schorr initially opined
that a combination of the severity of the downgrade and failure
of the left rear axle caused the accident, he could not conclude
where on the roadway the axle failed, or whether the grade of the
roadway caused the axle failure or was a factor in the happening
of the accident. Thus, the gradient of the roadway is irrelevant.
Nevertheless, plaintiff now argues that the dangerous
condition was the roadway and the improper and overused equipment
that rendered the roadway a dangerous condition. However, there
was no evidence that the mower was improperly used or overused,
or that improper use or overuse caused or contributed in any way
to the sudden and unexpected axle failure or the accident. In
sum, there was no proof whatsoever that SCCC created a dangerous
condition; had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous
16 A-0305-15T4
condition; or that its action was palpably unreasonable. We
therefore conclude that the grant of summary judgment was proper.
III.
SCCC asserted a cross-claim against Carroll for contractual
indemnification and breach of contract in failing to procure
insurance that would defend SCCC against and indemnify SCCC for
plaintiff's claims. Carroll never sought dismissal of the cross-
claim. Nevertheless, the motion judge believed the August 12,
2015 order was final and administratively dismissed it. The judge
determined he lacked jurisdiction to consider SCCC's motion for
reconsideration to reinstate the cross-claim because plaintiff had
already filed a notice of appeal.
The minimum requirements of due process of law are notice and
an opportunity to be heard. Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 106 (1995).
The opportunity to be heard contemplated by the concept of due
process means an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and
in a meaningful manner. Ibid. Our rules of court mandate that
motions be made in writing. R. 1:6-2(a). Moreover, a motion for
summary judgment must be filed no later than twenty-eight days
before the return date, R. 4:46-1, and the party seeking summary
judgment must file a brief and a statement of material facts in
support of the motion. R. 4:46-2(a). The purpose of these rules
is obvious, that is, to afford the non-moving party notice of the
17 A-0305-15T4
application and a meaningful opportunity to respond. "We cannot
condone a procedure whereby a judge sua sponte, without notice to
a party, resorts to a shortcut for the purposes of good
administration and circumvents the basic requirements of notice
and opportunity to be heard." Klier v. Sordoni Skanska Const.
Co., 337 N.J. Super. 76, 84-85 (App. Div. 2001).
In view of the lack of necessary due process here, we reverse
the October 28, 2015 order, vacate the dismissal of SCCC's cross-
claim against Carroll, and remand for further proceedings
regarding the dismissal of the cross-claim. We express no view
as to the merits of the cross-claim.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
18 A-0305-15T4