DANIELLE ADAMS et al. v. TRUMP PLAZA HOTEL AND CASINO

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2077-04T12077-04T1

DANIELLE ADAMS and JOHN ADAMS,

her husband,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

TRUMP PLAZA HOTEL AND CASINO,

Defendant-Respondent.

______________________________

 

Submitted October 23, 2006 - Decided November 3, 2006

Before Judges Lintner and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from the Superior Court of

New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County,

L-1475-03.

Drazin & Warshaw, attorneys for appellants (Richard A. Amdur, Jr., on the brief).

Cooper Levenson April Niedelman & Wagenheim, attorneys for respondent (Gerard W. Quinn, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs, Danielle and John Adams, appeal from a trial court order dismissing on summary judgment Danielle's personal injury claim and John's per quod claim against defendant, Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino. We affirm.

These are the most pertinent facts. At the time of the incident, plaintiffs were on the casino floor at the Trump Hotel and Casino. Danielle Adams was standing behind her husband, who was sitting at a slot machine. A casino employee who was walking behind her either kicked her foot or stepped upon it, causing injury. Neither of the plaintiffs saw the employee prior to the incident or as the incident was occurring. In response to defendant's statement of material facts, they admitted that "Mrs. Adams . . . does not know if the employee of Trump was running, walking, crawling, or doing anything else as he proceeded down the aisle where the incident occurred." They also admitted that "Mrs. Adams conceded that she did not know why the employee of Trump made contact with her" and "other than the incident occurring, she does not know what the Trump employee did wrong." Further, although she believed the employee was not watching where he was going "she did not know if the Trump employee was watching where he was going." In short, plaintiffs relied on the mere occurrence of the incident and nothing more.

According to the deposition testimony of the Trump employee, as he was walking down the aisle, Mrs. Adams stepped back into his path and he stepped on her foot.

On this appeal, plaintiffs contend that "[t]here is an inference of negligence available to the plaintiff to permit this case to go to a jury." Having reviewed the entire record de novo, as required under Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Boylan, 307 N.J. Super. 162, 167 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 154 N.J. 608 (1998), we conclude that plaintiffs' appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(e). Summary judgment was properly granted under the standard set forth in Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2077-04T1

November 3, 2006