eNotes: Liability – January 2024 – New Jersey

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

New Jersey Case Summaries

Hargett v. Hamilton Park Opco, LLC
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
No. A-2036-22, ___ N.J. Super. ____

Decided: December 11, 2023

In a decision concerning the Affidavit of Merit (“AOM”) statute, the Appellate Division rejected a collective negligence theory of vicarious liability and held that Plaintiff’s expert’s AOM failed to identify individually negligent persons and acts.

Background

The Plaintiff, who was the administratrix of decedent’s estate, appealed the Trial Court’s Order dismissing her medical malpractice Complaint with prejudice for failure to provide an appropriate affidavit of merit. The decedent developed pressure wounds and related complications while she resided at Defendant’s nursing center. The conditions persisted after decedent was transferred to a medical facility. Decedent died approximately one year later. Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against the Defendant nursing center and other medical providers. The Complaint did not name any individual medical professionals, including nurses, as Defendants. Plaintiff served a single AOM, prepared by a registered nurse, in support of all of her claims. The Trial Court granted the Defendant nursing center’s Motion to dismiss for failure to provide an appropriate AOM. The Trial Court concluded that the AOM was deficient for failing to provide specific notification as to a specific employee, with regard to a specific claim of negligence, and failed to provide notice as to who may have violated the applicable standard of care. Plaintiff appealed.

Holding

On appeal, the Plaintiff argued that the AOM provided by Plaintiff’s expert did meet the requirements of the statute by describing the breached standard of care. Plaintiff further asserted that the nursing facility was vicariously liable for its nurses’ failure to meet the applicable nursing standard of care. Plaintiff argued that she pleaded a valid vicarious liability claim based on the collective failure of Alaris Health’s nursing staff to provide proper wound preventative care. She argues there is no requirement that an AOM identify individual employees for whom an employer may be held vicariously liable if the employees are not named as Defendants.

The Appellate Division rejected Plaintiff’s argument. The Court noted that there was no dispute that the registered nurse affiant was qualified to execute an AOM regarding a nursing malpractice action. The question was whether her AOM was sufficient to support Plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim against Defendant. The Appellate Division concluded that it was not sufficient. It was not possible to identify any of Defendant’s nurses whom the AOM affiant asserted were negligent. Plaintiff was required by statute to provide each Defendant with an appropriate AOM. Plaintiff failed to do so here, where her AOM opined collectively as to the care provided by Defendant’s nurses and nurses at the medical center where decedent was transferred. The Appellate Division further noted that Plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim was essentially a recasting of her administrative negligence claim, which had been dismissed for failure to serve an appropriate AOM. Therefore, the Trial Court had properly dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint against the Defendant nursing center with prejudice.

Questions about this case can be directed to Mark Sander at (856) 334-0415 ext. 8915 or msander@tthlaw.com.

D.T. v. Archdiocese of Phila.
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
No. A-0372-22, ___ N.J. Super. ____

Decided: December 07, 2023

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, found that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s past ownership of New Jersey property, and its supervision of Defendant McCarthy, failed to establish specific personal jurisdiction over the Archdiocese in New Jersey, with respect to Plaintiff’s sexual abuse claims.

Background

Plaintiff alleged that Michael McCarthy, a former Catholic priest, sexually abused him in New Jersey in 1971. At that time, McCarthy was serving with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (“Archdiocese”). Prior to 2013, the Archdiocese owned two properties in New Jersey that it used as vacation homes for priests. Plaintiff’s family was introduced to McCarthy in 1971 while he was serving at a parish in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania. In July of that year, McCarthy invited Plaintiff to go with him to a home in Margate, New Jersey, where McCarthy allegedly sexually assaulted him. Plaintiff alleged that the Archdiocese had notice of McCarthy’s propensity for sexual abuse beginning in 1986. A Philadelphia grand jury report identified McCarthy as one of the perpetrators of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese, finding that the Archdiocese received reports about McCarthy in 1986, 1991 and 1992.

Plaintiff sued McCarthy and the Archdiocese, alleging that the Archdiocese was vicariously liable for McCarthy’s abuse and was also negligent in hiring and supervising him. The Archdiocese moved to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the Trial Court granted. The Trial Court ruled that the Archdioces’s past ownership of property in New Jersey was insufficient to constitute purposeful availment of any benefit of New Jersey that was related to McCarthy’s alleged abuse of Plaintiff, as Plaintiff never alleged that he was abused at any of the Archdiocese’s New Jersey properties. The Trial Court also noted that there were no allegations of deliberate conduct by the Archdiocese and that McCarthy acted unilaterally.

Holding

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his claims against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed. Explaining New Jersey case law regarding the bases for in personam jurisdiction, the Appellate Division noted: “[i]n determining whether the requirement to comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice’ is satisfied, courts evaluate several factors. A court ‘must consider the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum State, and the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief.’ A court must also weigh ‘the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.’” (citations omitted).

Reviewing the facts of this case in light of New Jersey’s case law, this Appellate Division panel agreed that the Archdiocese’s past ownership of New Jersey property, and its supervision of McCarthy, failed to establish specific personal jurisdiction over the Archdiocese with respect to Plaintiff’s sexual abuse claims.

Questions about this case can be directed to Mark Sander at (856) 334-0415 ext. 8915 or msander@tthlaw.com.

JA/GG Doe 70 v. Diocese of Metuchen
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
No. A-1919-22, ___ N.J. Super. ____

Decided: December 07, 2023

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division found sufficient connection between the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia and an alleged New Jersey priest accused of sexual misconduct from 1995 to 1998, thereby rendering the Richmond Diocese subject to civil suit in New Jersey.

Background

Plaintiff alleged that John Butler, a Catholic priest, sexually abused him from 1995 to 1998. Butler had been assigned to the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia (“Richmond Diocese”) in 1957 and remained there until 2002. Plaintiff alleged that the Richmond Diocese became aware of Butler’s propensity to sexually abuse children beginning in the 1960s, but allowed Butler to serve as a priest in New Jersey. Plaintiff alleged that the Richmond Diocese maintained supervision and control over Butler while he served in New Jersey, where he allegedly sexually abused Plaintiff. The Trial Court denied the Richmond Diocese’s Motion to dismiss the case, finding that it was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in New Jersey for Butler’s actions in the state.

Holding

The Richmond Diocese appealed the denial of its Motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. It argued that it did not purposefully avail itself of any benefit from New Jersey and thus should not be subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey. The Appellate Division rejected the Richmond Diocese’s argument and affirmed the Trial Court. In doing so, the Appellate Division found that the Plaintiff had alleged that Richmond Diocese purposefully encouraged Butler to serve in another diocese, after receiving complaints that Butler had engaged in sexual abuse. The Appellate Division further found that Butler needed permission from the Richmond Diocese to serve as a priest in another diocese. Thus, the Appellate Court agreed with the Trial Court that Richmond Diocese could reasonably anticipate being haled into a New Jersey Court for claims relating to Butler’s service in New Jersey.

Questions about this case can be directed to Mark Sander at (856) 334-0415 ext. 8915 or msander@tthlaw.com.