eNotes: Liability – February 2025 – New Jersey

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

New Jersey Case Summaries

Angelo v. CVS Health Corp.
United States District Court of New Jersey
2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234576

Decided: December 30, 2024

CVS’ Motion for summary judgment denied despite Plaintiff’s inability to identify a dangerous condition.

Background

In this slip-n-fall action, Plaintiff was entering the store’s front entrance when she tripped, slipped or fell in the dirt area between the curbs abutting the parking lot and sidewalk for the entrance of the store. She fell on her right knee first, then left, twisting her left. She walked into the store bleeding, asking to speak to management and explained her fall. Defendant, CVS Pharmacy, LLC sought summary judgment against Plaintiff, contending she failed to demonstrate that CVS breached its duty in maintaining its stores.

Holding

CVS’ argument was based primarily on Plaintiff’s inability to specifically identify the dangerous condition that led to her fall. In her deposition, Plaintiff was unable to identify exactly what caused her to fall. Rather, she merely stated she began to fall over a triangular dirt section of the sidewalk.

Fatal to CVS’ motion were several complaint letters obtained during the course of discovery from another customer complaining of the “the way the curbing was” and “the dirt.” CVS replied to these letters with concern. The Court determined, in review of the evidence, that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a dangerous condition. As such, the New Jersey District Court dismissed CVS’ Motion for summary judgment.

Questions about this case can be directed to Elizabeth O’Connell at (908) 574-0513 or eoconnell@tthlaw.com.

Picariello v. Bd. of Trustees of the Police & Firemen’s Retirement Sys.
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 74

Decided: January 16, 2025

Appellate Division affirms that a public employee is not entitled to deferred retirement compensation when that public employee is terminated for misconduct.

Background

Plaintiff, a former corrections officer, appealed a decision by the Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System denying his request for deferred retirement compensation. The request was made subsequent to Plaintiff’s discharge from the Department of Corrections due to testing positive for cocaine.

The Board and administrative law judge agreed that Plaintiff was not eligible for deferred retirement benefits because “there exists a sufficient nexus between [Plaintiff’s] employment as a sergeant, a sworn law enforcement officer, and the offense for which he was disciplined – testing positive for the use of an illegal drug, cocaine, in the workplace.” Plaintiff argued that he was entitled to deferred compensation as the Board did not establish that he was using cocaine in the workplace (just that he tested positive while at work).

Holding

The Board correctly determined that because Plaintiff had been removed from public employment for cause on charges including misconduct, he is ineligible to receive deferred retirement benefits.

Questions about this case can be directed to Jayden Peters at (908) 589-7518 or jpeters@tthlaw.com.