The Law

Passing The Buck by Ron Davis A married couple in New Jersey has sued several businesses following an injury the husband of the couple suffered. The site of the injury is the town of Franklin, and the mishap occurred while the husband was at the shopping center on business. Specifically, at the time of the alleged injury, he was on the grounds of ShopRite supermarkets, a tenant of the shopping center. Details of the injury show that it occurred as he was in the process of delivering goods to ShopRite. He alleges that the injuries he suffered occurred shortly after he and his wife arrived at the shopping center. He added that at the time of the injury, he noticed that an ongoing construction project was under way nearby to where he was walking. He said that as he reached near the construction, he stepped for a moment into a partially covered unmarked ditch that was hidden with snow. He added that no one had bothered to alert him to the danger of such a hazard. In fact, he, added, no one was in the area where he was walking. Because he was on the grounds of Ronetco Supermarkets at the time of the accident, the injured man sued the supermarket owner. And he also eventually sued various other businesses that had significant concerns and involvement in the incident. Ronetco’s then cross-claimed against Franklin Shopping Center, the management company, and “John Does.” Additionally, he filed a third-party complaint against Wurtsburo Associate, LLC, among other companies and individuals. They included Mainardi Management Company i/p/a, Franklin Shopping Plaza, and Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff. Finally, the blame spread to J.W. Construction. Ronetco replied with a third-party complaint against Wurtsboro Associate, Klae Construction, and D&C construction. From that point, most of those involved went through varied legal processes. An exception occurred when, later in the defense, and as a third party defendant, J.W. Construction, without any opposition from Ronetco, the third party plaintiff, at oral argument. Under Immediate judgment, as ordered by the judge hearing the case, such a ruling is appropriate when there is no genuine issue to material fact and that no moving party is entitled to a judgment “as a matter of law.” In conclusion, as explained by the court, “The motion for judgment in their favor filed by Ronetco and Mainardi Management and Wurtsboro are denied. Judgment is granted in favor of Construction on Wurstboro and Mainard’s third party complaint against and Klae Construction’s judgment is granted in its favor on Ronetco’s third party complaint against it. (Nedinsky v. Ronetco Supermarmarkets, Supermets, Inc., Slip Copy (2017) WL 115780 Decision: July 2017 Published: July 2017