Loading
Construction
11 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Fire Protection, Fire Suppression, Fire Origin & Cause, Building Inspection, Mechanical Engineering
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
New Jersey State
Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd. arose from a fatal May 13, 2005 fire at a Staybridge Suites Hotel in Somerset, New Jersey. A lit cigarette butt ignited landscaping mulch outside the building. The fire spread to an unsprinklered storage closet beneath an external staircase and then moved upward toward the second floor.
Irene Davis was staying in a second-floor suite with her children, Courtney Davis and Myles Davis. The fire trapped them inside the suite. Courtney and Myles died. Irene Davis suffered serious smoke-inhalation injuries.
Irene Davis and Wayne Davis filed civil claims against several defendants, including Atlantic Fire Service, Cintas Corporation, and Master Protection L.P., doing business as FireMaster L.P. These companies had inspected the hotel’s sprinkler system before the fire. The plaintiffs claimed the inspectors should have warned the hotel owner that the storage closet needed sprinkler coverage. The inspection defendants argued that NFPA 25 did not require them to identify or report sprinkler system design gaps.
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care for private sprinkler inspectors. The Court found the plaintiffs’ expert opinion inadmissible as a net opinion because it lacked support from accepted standards, codes, customs, or practices. Without admissible expert testimony establishing breach, the Court reinstated summary judgment for the sprinkler inspection defendants.
Before the fire, several companies inspected the sprinkler system at the Staybridge Suites Hotel in Somerset, New Jersey. FireMaster completed inspections between 1992 and 1997. Atlantic Fire Service inspected the sprinklers between 1997 and 2004. After Cintas purchased Atlantic, Cintas completed inspections between November 2004 and May 2005.
The plaintiffs later argued that these inspection companies had a duty to notify the hotel owner that the storage closet beneath the staircase needed a sprinkler. The defendants argued that their inspection obligations were limited by the standards governing sprinkler maintenance inspections.
On May 13, 2005, Irene Davis and her two children were staying in a second-floor suite at the Staybridge Suites Hotel in Somerset, New Jersey. A lit cigarette butt was thrown into landscaping mulch beside the hotel and started a fire.
The flames spread from the mulch to a storage closet beneath an external staircase. The closet did not contain a sprinkler. From there, the fire moved up the staircase toward the second floor. Irene Davis and her children became trapped in their suite. Courtney Davis and Myles Davis died, and Irene Davis suffered serious smoke-inhalation injuries.
After the fire, Irene Davis and Wayne Davis filed suit individually and on behalf of the estates of Courtney Davis and Myles Davis. The lawsuit named several defendants, including the hotel, the hotel’s landscaping contractor, and the sprinkler inspection companies.
The claims against Atlantic Fire Service, Cintas Corporation, and FireMaster addressed their sprinkler inspection work before the fire. The plaintiffs alleged that the inspectors should have informed the hotel owner that the storage closet beneath the staircase needed sprinkler coverage. They argued that a sprinkler in that closet would have allowed Irene Davis and her children to escape.
During pretrial proceedings, the parties addressed sprinkler inspection duties under the New Jersey Uniform Fire Code and NFPA 25. NFPA 25 was adopted by reference into the Uniform Fire Code through the 1996 BOCA Code and addressed the responsibilities of private sprinkler maintenance inspectors.
The plaintiffs argued that reasonable care required inspectors to identify and report the unsprinklered storage closet. The defendants argued that the governing standards required inspection of the existing sprinkler system’s operating condition, not evaluation or reporting of an alleged design gap.
Both sides presented expert evidence on the standard of care for private fire sprinkler inspectors. The defendants’ expert, Russell Fleming, stated that NFPA 25 represented the full extent of the responsibilities of private sprinkler maintenance inspectors. He concluded that the inspection defendants complied with NFPA 25 and that the standard did not require them to evaluate the need for an additional sprinkler or notify the hotel owner about that need.
The plaintiffs’ expert, Jack Mawhinney, agreed that NFPA 25 did not require inspectors to identify or report sprinkler system design defects, including the need for an additional sprinkler. However, he asserted that NFPA 25 was written incorrectly and that reasonable care required sprinkler inspectors to take additional precautions beyond NFPA 25. He concluded that the inspectors failed to exercise reasonable care when they did not notify the hotel owner that the storage closet needed a sprinkler.
The plaintiffs also obtained a report from a second expert, Joseph McCarey. The trial court struck McCarey’s report as a net opinion, and the plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling.
After discovery, Atlantic, Cintas, and FireMaster moved for summary judgment. They argued that NFPA 25 supplied the applicable standard of care and that the plaintiffs could not show a breach of that standard. They also challenged Mawhinney’s broader reasonable-care theory as an unsupported net opinion.
The trial court did not strike Mawhinney’s opinion. However, it held that the inspectors were not required to satisfy a standard of care beyond NFPA 25. Because the plaintiffs did not show that the inspection defendants breached the duty set by NFPA 25, the trial court granted summary judgment for Atlantic, Cintas, and FireMaster.
In 2012, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to all three inspection defendants. The appellate panel found that compliance with safety regulations, including NFPA 25, did not automatically resolve the negligence claims.
The Appellate Division concluded that reasonable care was the relevant standard and that a jury should decide whether the inspection defendants acted with adequate care. Atlantic, Cintas, and FireMaster each petitioned the New Jersey Supreme Court for certification, and the Court granted their petitions.
The New Jersey Supreme Court heard argument on March 4, 2014. The Court reviewed whether expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care for private fire sprinkler inspectors and whether the plaintiffs’ expert had adequately supported the asserted standard of care and breach.
On September 15, 2014, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs were required to establish the applicable standard of care through expert testimony. The Court reasoned that fire sprinkler inspections, NFPA 25, the Uniform Fire Code, and the role of private sprinkler inspectors involved technical issues beyond the knowledge of an average juror.
The Court also held that Mawhinney’s standard-of-care opinion was an inadmissible net opinion because it lacked objective support. The Court found that his opinion was based on his personal view and was not supported by a written standard, accepted custom, or recognized practice in the fire-safety field. Because the plaintiffs lacked admissible expert testimony establishing the standard of care and breach, the Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated summary judgment for Atlantic, Cintas, and FireMaster.
Court:
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County
Case Name:
Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd.
Fire Cause and Origin Investigations
Fire Protection Engineering
Fire Suppression Systems
Fire Safety Science
Fire Hazard
Fire Equipment
Smoke Inhalation
Hotel Wrongful Death
Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd. arose from a fatal May 13, 2005 fire at a Staybridge Suites Hotel in Somerset, New Jersey. A lit cigarette butt ignited landscaping mulch outside the building. The fire spread to an unsprinklered storage closet beneath an external staircase and then moved upward toward the second floor.
Irene Davis was staying in a second-floor suite with her children, Courtney Davis and Myles Davis. The fire trapped them inside the suite. Courtney and Myles died. Irene Davis suffered serious smoke-inhalation injuries.
Irene Davis and Wayne Davis filed civil claims against several defendants, including Atlantic Fire Service, Cintas Corporation, and Master Protection L.P., doing business as FireMaster L.P. These companies had inspected the hotel’s sprinkler system before the fire. The plaintiffs claimed the inspectors should have warned the hotel owner that the storage closet needed sprinkler coverage. The inspection defendants argued that NFPA 25 did not require them to identify or report sprinkler system design gaps.
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care for private sprinkler inspectors. The Court found the plaintiffs’ expert opinion inadmissible as a net opinion because it lacked support from accepted standards, codes, customs, or practices. Without admissible expert testimony establishing breach, the Court reinstated summary judgment for the sprinkler inspection defendants.
Before the fire, several companies inspected the sprinkler system at the Staybridge Suites Hotel in Somerset, New Jersey. FireMaster completed inspections between 1992 and 1997. Atlantic Fire Service inspected the sprinklers between 1997 and 2004. After Cintas purchased Atlantic, Cintas completed inspections between November 2004 and May 2005.
The plaintiffs later argued that these inspection companies had a duty to notify the hotel owner that the storage closet beneath the staircase needed a sprinkler. The defendants argued that their inspection obligations were limited by the standards governing sprinkler maintenance inspections.
On May 13, 2005, Irene Davis and her two children were staying in a second-floor suite at the Staybridge Suites Hotel in Somerset, New Jersey. A lit cigarette butt was thrown into landscaping mulch beside the hotel and started a fire.
The flames spread from the mulch to a storage closet beneath an external staircase. The closet did not contain a sprinkler. From there, the fire moved up the staircase toward the second floor. Irene Davis and her children became trapped in their suite. Courtney Davis and Myles Davis died, and Irene Davis suffered serious smoke-inhalation injuries.
After the fire, Irene Davis and Wayne Davis filed suit individually and on behalf of the estates of Courtney Davis and Myles Davis. The lawsuit named several defendants, including the hotel, the hotel’s landscaping contractor, and the sprinkler inspection companies.
The claims against Atlantic Fire Service, Cintas Corporation, and FireMaster addressed their sprinkler inspection work before the fire. The plaintiffs alleged that the inspectors should have informed the hotel owner that the storage closet beneath the staircase needed sprinkler coverage. They argued that a sprinkler in that closet would have allowed Irene Davis and her children to escape.
During pretrial proceedings, the parties addressed sprinkler inspection duties under the New Jersey Uniform Fire Code and NFPA 25. NFPA 25 was adopted by reference into the Uniform Fire Code through the 1996 BOCA Code and addressed the responsibilities of private sprinkler maintenance inspectors.
The plaintiffs argued that reasonable care required inspectors to identify and report the unsprinklered storage closet. The defendants argued that the governing standards required inspection of the existing sprinkler system’s operating condition, not evaluation or reporting of an alleged design gap.
Both sides presented expert evidence on the standard of care for private fire sprinkler inspectors. The defendants’ expert, Russell Fleming, stated that NFPA 25 represented the full extent of the responsibilities of private sprinkler maintenance inspectors. He concluded that the inspection defendants complied with NFPA 25 and that the standard did not require them to evaluate the need for an additional sprinkler or notify the hotel owner about that need.
The plaintiffs’ expert, Jack Mawhinney, agreed that NFPA 25 did not require inspectors to identify or report sprinkler system design defects, including the need for an additional sprinkler. However, he asserted that NFPA 25 was written incorrectly and that reasonable care required sprinkler inspectors to take additional precautions beyond NFPA 25. He concluded that the inspectors failed to exercise reasonable care when they did not notify the hotel owner that the storage closet needed a sprinkler.
The plaintiffs also obtained a report from a second expert, Joseph McCarey. The trial court struck McCarey’s report as a net opinion, and the plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling.
After discovery, Atlantic, Cintas, and FireMaster moved for summary judgment. They argued that NFPA 25 supplied the applicable standard of care and that the plaintiffs could not show a breach of that standard. They also challenged Mawhinney’s broader reasonable-care theory as an unsupported net opinion.
The trial court did not strike Mawhinney’s opinion. However, it held that the inspectors were not required to satisfy a standard of care beyond NFPA 25. Because the plaintiffs did not show that the inspection defendants breached the duty set by NFPA 25, the trial court granted summary judgment for Atlantic, Cintas, and FireMaster.
In 2012, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to all three inspection defendants. The appellate panel found that compliance with safety regulations, including NFPA 25, did not automatically resolve the negligence claims.
The Appellate Division concluded that reasonable care was the relevant standard and that a jury should decide whether the inspection defendants acted with adequate care. Atlantic, Cintas, and FireMaster each petitioned the New Jersey Supreme Court for certification, and the Court granted their petitions.
The New Jersey Supreme Court heard argument on March 4, 2014. The Court reviewed whether expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care for private fire sprinkler inspectors and whether the plaintiffs’ expert had adequately supported the asserted standard of care and breach.
On September 15, 2014, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs were required to establish the applicable standard of care through expert testimony. The Court reasoned that fire sprinkler inspections, NFPA 25, the Uniform Fire Code, and the role of private sprinkler inspectors involved technical issues beyond the knowledge of an average juror.
The Court also held that Mawhinney’s standard-of-care opinion was an inadmissible net opinion because it lacked objective support. The Court found that his opinion was based on his personal view and was not supported by a written standard, accepted custom, or recognized practice in the fire-safety field. Because the plaintiffs lacked admissible expert testimony establishing the standard of care and breach, the Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated summary judgment for Atlantic, Cintas, and FireMaster.
Fire Prevention Engineering Expert Witnesses - Plaintiff
Fire prevention engineering expert witnesses may evaluate fire-code duties, fire-safety inspection practices, sprinkler coverage, and the role of inspection companies in hotel fire litigation. In Davis, plaintiffs’ expert Jack Mawhinney addressed the standard of care for sprinkler inspectors.
Mawhinney agreed that NFPA 25 did not require the inspectors to identify or report the need for an additional sprinkler. However, he argued that reasonable care required the inspectors to notify the hotel owner about the storage closet. The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected his standard-of-care opinion as an inadmissible net opinion because it lacked support from accepted standards, codes, customs, or practices.
Fire Sprinkler Inspection and NFPA 25 Expert Witnesses - Defense
Fire sprinkler inspection and NFPA 25 expert witnesses may address inspection scope, testing duties, maintenance obligations, deficiency reporting, and whether an inspection company followed the applicable standard. In Davis, defendants’ expert Russell Fleming stated that NFPA 25 represented the full extent of the responsibilities of private sprinkler maintenance inspectors.
Fleming concluded that the inspection defendants complied with NFPA 25. He also concluded that NFPA 25 did not require them to evaluate the need for an additional sprinkler or notify the hotel owner about any such need.
Additional Fire-Safety Expert Witness - Plaintiff
Additional fire-safety expert evidence may address applicable fire codes, NFPA standards, inspection records, and the difference between regulatory compliance and negligence. In Davis, plaintiffs obtained a report from Joseph McCarey.
The trial court struck McCarey’s report as a net opinion, and the plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling. The New Jersey Supreme Court opinion does not describe McCarey’s technical discipline in detail, so his role should not be stated more specifically without another supporting source.
Mechanical Engineering Expert Witnesses
Mechanical engineering expert witnesses may assist in fire-protection disputes when the system issues involve water-based suppression, pressure, piping, valves, pumps, hydraulic performance, system layout, or interaction with other building systems.
Fire Cause and Origin Investigations Expert Witnesses
Fire origin and cause expert witnesses may determine where and how a fire started, how it spread, and whether fire-protection features affected the outcome.
Technical fire-code issues may require expert testimony
Fire sprinkler inspection disputes can involve technical standards that jurors cannot evaluate without expert guidance. In Davis, the New Jersey Supreme Court required expert testimony because the claims involved NFPA 25, the Uniform Fire Code, inspection scope, and private fire-protection inspection duties.
Standard-of-care opinions need objective support
A standard-of-care opinion should rely on specific code provisions, NFPA standards, regulations, inspection protocols, accepted industry practices, or other objective sources. An opinion based mainly on personal judgment may be excluded as a net opinion.
Inspection scope can affect liability
The inspection companies’ duties depended on what they were required to inspect and report. In fire-protection litigation, lawyers should review contracts, inspection reports, invoices, prior notices, code provisions, and deposition testimony to determine whether the disputed condition fell within the inspector’s assignment.
Code compliance may support a defense, but it does not always end the negligence inquiry
The New Jersey Supreme Court recognized that compliance with NFPA 25 did not automatically defeat every possible negligence theory. However, the Court required the plaintiffs to support any broader reasonable-care standard with admissible expert testimony. Because that support was missing, the claims against the inspection defendants could not proceed.
Fire litigation should separate design, inspection, causation, and damages issues
A hotel fire claim may involve several distinct questions: whether the system had a design gap, whether the inspector had a duty to report that condition, whether the missing sprinkler affected the fire outcome, and what damages resulted. These issues may require separate analysis from fire-code, sprinkler inspection, mechanical systems, fire spread, occupant safety, and damages experts.
Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd. ended with the New Jersey Supreme Court reinstating summary judgment for Atlantic Fire Service, Cintas Corporation, and FireMaster. The fatal fire began outside the Staybridge Suites Hotel, spread from landscaping mulch to an unsprinklered storage closet beneath an external staircase, and moved toward the second floor. Irene Davis and her children were trapped in their suite. Courtney Davis and Myles Davis died, and Irene Davis suffered serious smoke-inhalation injuries.
The claims against the sprinkler inspection companies depended on whether they had a duty to tell the hotel owner that the storage closet needed a sprinkler. The defendants argued that NFPA 25 defined their inspection duties and did not require them to identify or report sprinkler system design gaps. The New Jersey Supreme Court required admissible expert testimony because the disputed standard of care involved technical fire-safety and inspection issues. Since the plaintiffs’ broader standard-of-care theory lacked objective support from accepted standards, codes, customs, or practices, the claims against the sprinkler inspection defendants could not proceed.
What happened during the Staybridge Suites hotel fire?
On May 13, 2005, a fire occurred at the Staybridge Suites Hotel in Somerset, New Jersey, while Irene Davis and her two children were staying in a second-floor suite. The fire began after a lit cigarette butt was thrown into landscaping mulch beside the hotel. It spread to a storage closet beneath an external staircase and then moved up the stairs toward the second floor. Courtney Davis and Myles Davis died, and Irene Davis suffered serious smoke-inhalation injuries.
Which fire sprinkler inspection companies were named in the lawsuit?
The sprinkler inspection defendants were Atlantic Fire Service, Cintas Corporation, and Master Protection L.P., doing business as FireMaster L.P. FireMaster inspected the sprinkler system between 1992 and 1997. Atlantic inspected it between 1997 and 2004. After Cintas purchased Atlantic, Cintas completed inspections between November 2004 and May 2005.
What role did NFPA 25 play in the case?
NFPA 25 addressed the responsibilities of private sprinkler maintenance inspectors under the regulatory framework discussed by the Court. The defendants argued that NFPA 25 defined the full scope of their duties and did not require them to evaluate the need for an additional sprinkler or notify the hotel owner. The plaintiffs argued that reasonable care required the inspectors to take additional precautions beyond NFPA 25.
Why did the Appellate Division and New Jersey Supreme Court reach different outcomes?
The Appellate Division found that compliance with NFPA 25 did not automatically resolve the negligence claims and that a jury should decide whether the inspection defendants exercised reasonable care. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed that regulatory compliance is not always conclusive, but held that the plaintiffs needed admissible expert testimony to support a broader standard of care. Because Mawhinney’s opinion lacked objective support, the Supreme Court reinstated summary judgment for the inspection defendants.
Fire Prevention Engineering Expert Witnesses - Plaintiff
Fire prevention engineering expert witnesses may evaluate fire-code duties, fire-safety inspection practices, sprinkler coverage, and the role of inspection companies in hotel fire litigation. In Davis, plaintiffs’ expert Jack Mawhinney addressed the standard of care for sprinkler inspectors.
Mawhinney agreed that NFPA 25 did not require the inspectors to identify or report the need for an additional sprinkler. However, he argued that reasonable care required the inspectors to notify the hotel owner about the storage closet. The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected his standard-of-care opinion as an inadmissible net opinion because it lacked support from accepted standards, codes, customs, or practices.
Fire Sprinkler Inspection and NFPA 25 Expert Witnesses - Defense
Fire sprinkler inspection and NFPA 25 expert witnesses may address inspection scope, testing duties, maintenance obligations, deficiency reporting, and whether an inspection company followed the applicable standard. In Davis, defendants’ expert Russell Fleming stated that NFPA 25 represented the full extent of the responsibilities of private sprinkler maintenance inspectors.
Fleming concluded that the inspection defendants complied with NFPA 25. He also concluded that NFPA 25 did not require them to evaluate the need for an additional sprinkler or notify the hotel owner about any such need.
Additional Fire-Safety Expert Witness - Plaintiff
Additional fire-safety expert evidence may address applicable fire codes, NFPA standards, inspection records, and the difference between regulatory compliance and negligence. In Davis, plaintiffs obtained a report from Joseph McCarey.
The trial court struck McCarey’s report as a net opinion, and the plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling. The New Jersey Supreme Court opinion does not describe McCarey’s technical discipline in detail, so his role should not be stated more specifically without another supporting source.
Mechanical Engineering Expert Witnesses
Mechanical engineering expert witnesses may assist in fire-protection disputes when the system issues involve water-based suppression, pressure, piping, valves, pumps, hydraulic performance, system layout, or interaction with other building systems.
Fire Cause and Origin Investigations Expert Witnesses
Fire origin and cause expert witnesses may determine where and how a fire started, how it spread, and whether fire-protection features affected the outcome.
Technical fire-code issues may require expert testimony
Fire sprinkler inspection disputes can involve technical standards that jurors cannot evaluate without expert guidance. In Davis, the New Jersey Supreme Court required expert testimony because the claims involved NFPA 25, the Uniform Fire Code, inspection scope, and private fire-protection inspection duties.
Standard-of-care opinions need objective support
A standard-of-care opinion should rely on specific code provisions, NFPA standards, regulations, inspection protocols, accepted industry practices, or other objective sources. An opinion based mainly on personal judgment may be excluded as a net opinion.
Inspection scope can affect liability
The inspection companies’ duties depended on what they were required to inspect and report. In fire-protection litigation, lawyers should review contracts, inspection reports, invoices, prior notices, code provisions, and deposition testimony to determine whether the disputed condition fell within the inspector’s assignment.
Code compliance may support a defense, but it does not always end the negligence inquiry
The New Jersey Supreme Court recognized that compliance with NFPA 25 did not automatically defeat every possible negligence theory. However, the Court required the plaintiffs to support any broader reasonable-care standard with admissible expert testimony. Because that support was missing, the claims against the inspection defendants could not proceed.
Fire litigation should separate design, inspection, causation, and damages issues
A hotel fire claim may involve several distinct questions: whether the system had a design gap, whether the inspector had a duty to report that condition, whether the missing sprinkler affected the fire outcome, and what damages resulted. These issues may require separate analysis from fire-code, sprinkler inspection, mechanical systems, fire spread, occupant safety, and damages experts.
Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd. ended with the New Jersey Supreme Court reinstating summary judgment for Atlantic Fire Service, Cintas Corporation, and FireMaster. The fatal fire began outside the Staybridge Suites Hotel, spread from landscaping mulch to an unsprinklered storage closet beneath an external staircase, and moved toward the second floor. Irene Davis and her children were trapped in their suite. Courtney Davis and Myles Davis died, and Irene Davis suffered serious smoke-inhalation injuries.
The claims against the sprinkler inspection companies depended on whether they had a duty to tell the hotel owner that the storage closet needed a sprinkler. The defendants argued that NFPA 25 defined their inspection duties and did not require them to identify or report sprinkler system design gaps. The New Jersey Supreme Court required admissible expert testimony because the disputed standard of care involved technical fire-safety and inspection issues. Since the plaintiffs’ broader standard-of-care theory lacked objective support from accepted standards, codes, customs, or practices, the claims against the sprinkler inspection defendants could not proceed.
What happened during the Staybridge Suites hotel fire?
On May 13, 2005, a fire occurred at the Staybridge Suites Hotel in Somerset, New Jersey, while Irene Davis and her two children were staying in a second-floor suite. The fire began after a lit cigarette butt was thrown into landscaping mulch beside the hotel. It spread to a storage closet beneath an external staircase and then moved up the stairs toward the second floor. Courtney Davis and Myles Davis died, and Irene Davis suffered serious smoke-inhalation injuries.
Which fire sprinkler inspection companies were named in the lawsuit?
The sprinkler inspection defendants were Atlantic Fire Service, Cintas Corporation, and Master Protection L.P., doing business as FireMaster L.P. FireMaster inspected the sprinkler system between 1992 and 1997. Atlantic inspected it between 1997 and 2004. After Cintas purchased Atlantic, Cintas completed inspections between November 2004 and May 2005.
What role did NFPA 25 play in the case?
NFPA 25 addressed the responsibilities of private sprinkler maintenance inspectors under the regulatory framework discussed by the Court. The defendants argued that NFPA 25 defined the full scope of their duties and did not require them to evaluate the need for an additional sprinkler or notify the hotel owner. The plaintiffs argued that reasonable care required the inspectors to take additional precautions beyond NFPA 25.
Why did the Appellate Division and New Jersey Supreme Court reach different outcomes?
The Appellate Division found that compliance with NFPA 25 did not automatically resolve the negligence claims and that a jury should decide whether the inspection defendants exercised reasonable care. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed that regulatory compliance is not always conclusive, but held that the plaintiffs needed admissible expert testimony to support a broader standard of care. Because Mawhinney’s opinion lacked objective support, the Supreme Court reinstated summary judgment for the inspection defendants.
How did the New Jersey Supreme Court resolve the claims against the sprinkler inspection defendants?
On September 15, 2014, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment to Atlantic, Cintas, and FireMaster. The Court held that expert testimony was required and that the plaintiffs’ asserted standard of care was not supported by admissible expert evidence.
Fire Cause and Origin Investigations
Fire Protection Engineering
Fire Suppression Systems
Fire Safety Science
Fire Hazard
Fire Equipment
Smoke Inhalation
Hotel Wrongful Death
Geotechnical Engineering, +4
Construction
Industrial Hygiene, +7
Construction
How did the New Jersey Supreme Court resolve the claims against the sprinkler inspection defendants?
On September 15, 2014, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment to Atlantic, Cintas, and FireMaster. The Court held that expert testimony was required and that the plaintiffs’ asserted standard of care was not supported by admissible expert evidence.