MARTIN WILLICK, et al. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and JOSEPH SANTIGLIA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
 
 
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1585-05T1

MARTIN WILLICK, Administrator
and Administrator ad Prosequendum
of the Estate of JEFFREY WILLICK,
deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY and JOSEPH
SANTIGLIA,

Defendants,

and

STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY,

Defendant-Respondent.
__________________________________________________________

Text Box
 
September 25, 2006

Submitted August 29, 2006 Decided

Before Judges R. B. Coleman and Holston, Jr.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, L-9316-02.

Baker, Garber, Duffy & Pedersen, attorneys for appellant Martin Willick (Gerald H. Baker, on the brief).

Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, attorneys for respondent Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company (Harris Neal Feldman and George N. Tompkins, III of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Martin Willick, Administrator and Administrator ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Jeffrey Willick, deceased, appeals from the May 17, 2005 order of the Law Division, Bergen County, granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks) and dismissing all claims against Starbucks with prejudice. See footnote 1 In opposition to that motion and in support of his appeal, plaintiff contends that Starbucks owed a duty to Jeffrey Willick and other patrons to install protective devices to protect them from vehicular traffic and that it breached that duty.
Defendant contends that the decedent, who was seated at a table inside Starbucks, working on his computer, when a vehicle driven by defendant Joseph A. Santiglia crashed through the front of the store, was seriously injured and died as a result of a unique and aberrant occurrence in that the driver of the errant vehicle was not intending to utilize the Starbucks store as a customer. It is undisputed that the driver of the vehicle was reacting to an emergency situation that resulted either from his own negligent operation of the vehicle or from an alleged defect in the cruise control of the vehicle. He swerved off Route 4, through the Starbucks parking lot and into the front of the store.
In a written opinion setting forth the reasons for his decision, Judge Robert P. Contillio observed that:

[w]hile any catastrophe or tragedy can be considered 'foreseeable,' particularly in hindsight, aberrant emergency situations such as the one here that are caused by outside forces beyond Starbucks' control are not reasonably foreseeable, as required by the law.

Under the totality of the circumstances approach and the elements set forth in [Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426 (1993)], I find in favor of Starbucks. The loss of control of the car, whether due to Santiglia's or Ford's negligence (or both) is an intervening and independent act, and it would be unfair and unreasonable to impose liability on Starbucks under these circumstances.

On appeal from the order granting summary judgment, we apply the same standard that governed the analysis by the motion judge. Prudential Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Boylan, 307 N.J. Super. 162, 167 (App. Div.) certif. denied, 154 N.J. 608 (1998); See Antheunisse v. Tiffany & Co., 229 N.J. Super. 399, 402 (App. Div. 1988), certif. denied, 115 N.J. 59 (1989). In this case, we are satisfied that, giving plaintiff the benefit of all of the reasonable inferences, defendants demonstrated that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that plaintiff was entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).
Based upon our independent review of the record and our view of the prevailing law, we affirm for substantially the reasons articulated more fully by Judge Contillo in the comprehensive decision he rendered on the motion.
Affirmed.

Text Box
 



Footnote: 1 The plaintiff's case against Ford Motor Company and Joseph Santiglia proceeded to trial and ultimately settled on June 1, 2005.

A-