Loading
Real Estate
8 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Elevator & Escalator, Mechanical Engineering, Orthopedics, Neurology, Radiology
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
New Jersey State
Court:
The New Jersey elevator accident lawsuit brought by Richard L. Tufaro and his wife, Sharon, arose from an August 19, 2005 elevator malfunction at Headquarters Plaza in Morristown, New Jersey. A 2012 jury returned a damages verdict that was later entered as a judgment exceeding $4.8 million after prejudgment interest, but the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the judgment in 2013 because the verdict sheet did not include a required proximate-cause question. As a result, the jury had not been asked to decide whether the elevator accident caused Mr. Tufaro’s specific injuries. The ruling led to a new trial on all issues except Schindler’s admitted negligence. In the 2014 retrial, a second jury awarded approximately $8 million. Schindler later challenged the damages award and sought additional post-trial relief, but after further court review, the award remained in place. With interest, the final reported outcome reached approximately $10.6 million.
After the retrial, the court found that the record supported the jury’s findings. Testimony described the elevator shaking, descending, stopping abruptly between floors, and throwing Mr. Tufaro into a metal panel. The court also addressed medical evidence documenting long-term physical limitations and surveillance footage that corroborated key details. The elevator malfunction, abrupt stop, and claimed spinal and shoulder injuries remained central to the dispute, while the courts reviewed whether the retrial verdict was supported by witness testimony, damages evidence, and the governing legal standards.
Richard L. Tufaro entered the service elevator at Headquarters Plaza in Morristown at the end of his workday when the elevator shook, descended, stopped abruptly, and became stuck between floors. The sudden stop threw him into a metal panel inside the elevator. He immediately reported pain in his back, neck, and shoulder. The forceful stop described in the court record began the injury sequence later documented by several physicians.
The next morning, Mr. Tufaro sought emergency care for severe pain and restricted movement. Medical notes recorded symptoms involving his neck, back, shoulder, and knee, and he was advised to obtain further orthopedic evaluation. This examination marked the start of extended medical treatment tied to the elevator’s abrupt stop.
During this period, Mr. Tufaro received orthopedic care, pain-management treatment, and treatment from a psychologist. He later underwent shoulder surgery. The record reflected cervical and lumbar disc herniations, a shoulder labral tear, and psychological symptoms linked to the elevator incident. Schindler’s surveillance videos from 2007 to 2010 were introduced at trial and documented limited mobility, weight gain, and daily-living difficulties, which the court later described as consistent with the medical testimony.
The first trial included expert testimony from several fields. Dr. Rebecca Johnson, a radiologist and neuroradiologist, testified that, in her medical opinion, the elevator incident resulted in the cervical spine findings she observed. Dr. Michael Ciccone, a urologist, testified that, based on his review of the medical records, the event was consistent with the onset of permanent erectile dysfunction. Colleen Rilling, a senior claims representative, testified that, in her assessment, the medical bills were related, reasonable, and customary.
Plaintiff’s engineering expert James Filippone testified that the elevator’s abrupt stop could have generated forces he estimated at four to five g’s. Defense experts Dr. David Irwin Rubinfeld, Dr. Elliot A. Grossman, and John Delorenzi presented alternative opinions on injury causation and elevator mechanics, including testimony addressing sprain-related findings, preexisting conditions, braking functions, speed capacity, and the limits of what could be determined about the elevator’s actual descent speed when the braking system engaged.
The New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the first verdict because the verdict sheet did not include a required proximate-cause question. The court held that the omission prevented the jury from deciding whether the elevator event legally caused the specific injuries claimed. The case was remanded for a new trial on all issues except Schindler’s admitted negligence, allowing causation and damages to be reviewed under proper jury instructions.
During the retrial, the jury again heard testimony describing the elevator’s descent, abrupt stop, position between floors, and the injuries documented over several years. Engineering testimony addressing abrupt stops and estimated force levels was again presented. Medical testimony explaining how the injuries aligned with the reported event also remained central to the case. The jury awarded approximately $8 million, nearly twice the prior verdict.
Schindler challenged the retrial verdict as excessive and sought further post-trial relief. On appeal, the court upheld key portions of the retrial record but required additional review of the damages issue before the award was ultimately left in place. The court record referenced medical testimony, long-term injury evidence, engineering testimony, and surveillance footage as evidence supporting the jury’s conclusions. With interest added, the final reported amount reached approximately $10.6 million.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County
Case Name:
Richard L. Tufaro and Sharon M. Tufaro v. Headquarters Plaza, et al.
Elevators
Mechanical Failure
Mechanical Systems
Mechanical Testing
Accident Investigation and Reconstruction
Orthopedic Surgeon
Damages Calculations
The New Jersey elevator accident lawsuit brought by Richard L. Tufaro and his wife, Sharon, arose from an August 19, 2005 elevator malfunction at Headquarters Plaza in Morristown, New Jersey. A 2012 jury returned a damages verdict that was later entered as a judgment exceeding $4.8 million after prejudgment interest, but the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the judgment in 2013 because the verdict sheet did not include a required proximate-cause question. As a result, the jury had not been asked to decide whether the elevator accident caused Mr. Tufaro’s specific injuries. The ruling led to a new trial on all issues except Schindler’s admitted negligence. In the 2014 retrial, a second jury awarded approximately $8 million. Schindler later challenged the damages award and sought additional post-trial relief, but after further court review, the award remained in place. With interest, the final reported outcome reached approximately $10.6 million.
After the retrial, the court found that the record supported the jury’s findings. Testimony described the elevator shaking, descending, stopping abruptly between floors, and throwing Mr. Tufaro into a metal panel. The court also addressed medical evidence documenting long-term physical limitations and surveillance footage that corroborated key details. The elevator malfunction, abrupt stop, and claimed spinal and shoulder injuries remained central to the dispute, while the courts reviewed whether the retrial verdict was supported by witness testimony, damages evidence, and the governing legal standards.
Richard L. Tufaro entered the service elevator at Headquarters Plaza in Morristown at the end of his workday when the elevator shook, descended, stopped abruptly, and became stuck between floors. The sudden stop threw him into a metal panel inside the elevator. He immediately reported pain in his back, neck, and shoulder. The forceful stop described in the court record began the injury sequence later documented by several physicians.
The next morning, Mr. Tufaro sought emergency care for severe pain and restricted movement. Medical notes recorded symptoms involving his neck, back, shoulder, and knee, and he was advised to obtain further orthopedic evaluation. This examination marked the start of extended medical treatment tied to the elevator’s abrupt stop.
During this period, Mr. Tufaro received orthopedic care, pain-management treatment, and treatment from a psychologist. He later underwent shoulder surgery. The record reflected cervical and lumbar disc herniations, a shoulder labral tear, and psychological symptoms linked to the elevator incident. Schindler’s surveillance videos from 2007 to 2010 were introduced at trial and documented limited mobility, weight gain, and daily-living difficulties, which the court later described as consistent with the medical testimony.
The first trial included expert testimony from several fields. Dr. Rebecca Johnson, a radiologist and neuroradiologist, testified that, in her medical opinion, the elevator incident resulted in the cervical spine findings she observed. Dr. Michael Ciccone, a urologist, testified that, based on his review of the medical records, the event was consistent with the onset of permanent erectile dysfunction. Colleen Rilling, a senior claims representative, testified that, in her assessment, the medical bills were related, reasonable, and customary.
Plaintiff’s engineering expert James Filippone testified that the elevator’s abrupt stop could have generated forces he estimated at four to five g’s. Defense experts Dr. David Irwin Rubinfeld, Dr. Elliot A. Grossman, and John Delorenzi presented alternative opinions on injury causation and elevator mechanics, including testimony addressing sprain-related findings, preexisting conditions, braking functions, speed capacity, and the limits of what could be determined about the elevator’s actual descent speed when the braking system engaged.
The New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the first verdict because the verdict sheet did not include a required proximate-cause question. The court held that the omission prevented the jury from deciding whether the elevator event legally caused the specific injuries claimed. The case was remanded for a new trial on all issues except Schindler’s admitted negligence, allowing causation and damages to be reviewed under proper jury instructions.
During the retrial, the jury again heard testimony describing the elevator’s descent, abrupt stop, position between floors, and the injuries documented over several years. Engineering testimony addressing abrupt stops and estimated force levels was again presented. Medical testimony explaining how the injuries aligned with the reported event also remained central to the case. The jury awarded approximately $8 million, nearly twice the prior verdict.
Schindler challenged the retrial verdict as excessive and sought further post-trial relief. On appeal, the court upheld key portions of the retrial record but required additional review of the damages issue before the award was ultimately left in place. The court record referenced medical testimony, long-term injury evidence, engineering testimony, and surveillance footage as evidence supporting the jury’s conclusions. With interest added, the final reported amount reached approximately $10.6 million.
Radiology and Neuroradiology Expert Witnesses (Plaintiff)
Dr. Rebecca Johnson, testifying for the plaintiff, provided radiology and neuroradiology findings that, in her medical assessment, were consistent with the cervical spine injuries reported after the elevator’s abrupt stop, and her testimony appeared in the record as part of the medical evidence addressing causation. Her contribution in this case formed part of the medical evaluation of injuries following the elevator’s sudden stop.
Urology Expert Witnesses (Plaintiff)
Dr. Michael Ciccone testified for the plaintiff and stated that, in his medical opinion based on the records he reviewed, the elevator incident was consistent with the development of permanent erectile dysfunction. His testimony became part of the evidence the jury considered when reviewing the consequences of the elevator’s abrupt stop.
Orthopedic Medicine Expert Witnesses (Defense)
Dr. David Irwin Rubinfeld testified for the defense and described the injuries as sprains, while acknowledging that the symptoms could relate to the elevator incident if the underlying history was accurate. His testimony provided an alternative interpretation of the plaintiff’s condition in the context of the elevator event.
Neurology Expert Witnesses (Defense)
Dr. Elliot A. Grossman testified for the defense and stated that the plaintiff’s complaints reflected preexisting conditions rather than injuries caused by the elevator’s sudden stop. His contribution offered a contrasting medical perspective that the jury weighed against other expert testimony.
Elevator Engineering and Mechanical Expert Witnesses (Plaintiff and Defense)
Plaintiff’s expert James Filippone testified that, in his engineering analysis, the elevator’s abrupt stop could have generated forces he estimated at four to five g’s, and he explained how those estimates aligned with the impact described in the record. Defense expert John Delorenzi testified about the elevator’s mechanical systems, speed capacities, and braking functions, while acknowledging that he did not know the car’s actual descent speed when the braking system engaged. Elevator engineering and mechanical experts are often engaged to explain braking behavior, force generation, and how an elevator responds during abnormal stops.
Claims and Medical Billing Expert Witnesses – Plaintiff
Colleen Rilling testified for the plaintiff as a senior claims representative and stated that, in her assessment, the medical bills were related to the elevator incident and were reasonable and customary. Her testimony contributed to the evidence on medical expenses considered by the jury.
Verdict Sheet Questions Must Address Proximate Cause
The reversal shows why verdict sheets must include clear proximate-cause questions, especially when a plaintiff claims several injuries from one incident.
Mechanical and Medical Evidence Should Be Connected Clearly
The case relied on the relationship between estimated g-forces, elevator braking behavior, diagnostic findings, and reported symptoms. Presenting those points together helped the jury evaluate causation.
Surveillance Footage Can Affect Either Side’s Argument
Although Schindler introduced surveillance footage, the court later described parts of the footage as consistent with the plaintiff’s medical limitations. Video evidence can support or weaken a claim depending on how it compares with the medical record.
Procedural Accuracy Can Determine the Trial Outcome
Even when negligence for the elevator malfunction is admitted, unclear or incomplete jury instructions can require a new trial. The missing proximate-cause question became a central reason the first verdict was reversed.
Multiple Evidence Types Can Strengthen the Damages Presentation
The combination of imaging, urology, neurology, orthopedic, psychological, and engineering evidence gave the jury a broader view of the claimed injuries and their connection to the elevator incident.
The New Jersey elevator accident lawsuit centered on a service elevator at Headquarters Plaza that shook, descended between floors, stopped abruptly, and allegedly threw Richard L. Tufaro into a metal panel. The case moved from a 2012 judgment exceeding $4.8 million after prejudgment interest to a 2013 appellate reversal after the verdict sheet omitted a required proximate-cause question, then to a 2014 retrial that resulted in an award of approximately $8 million. Later post-trial and appellate review left the award in place, with interest bringing the final reported outcome to approximately $10.6 million. The litigation turned on elevator movement, braking forces, medical evidence, surveillance footage, injury causation, damages, and the need for jury findings that clearly connect an accident to the injuries claimed.
What happened during the elevator incident?
The elevator shook, descended between floors, stopped abruptly, and threw Richard L. Tufaro against a metal panel. He reported injuries involving his neck, back, and shoulder.
Why was the first verdict reversed?
The New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the first verdict because the verdict sheet did not ask the jury to decide whether the elevator event caused the specific injuries claimed. That omission required a retrial on all issues except Schindler’s admitted negligence.
What was the result of the retrial?
The second jury awarded approximately $8 million after reviewing evidence about the elevator’s movement, the abrupt stop, and Mr. Tufaro’s long-term medical condition.
Did the court leave the retrial verdict in place?
Yes. After post-trial and appellate review, the award was ultimately left in place. The court record included medical testimony, engineering evidence, surveillance footage, and damages evidence supporting the jury’s conclusions.
How did the judgment reach approximately $10.6 million?
Interest applied to the retrial award increased the final reported outcome to approximately $10.6 million.
What did the case involve beyond the elevator malfunction itself?
The litigation also involved proximate cause, jury-instruction issues, engineering testimony about braking forces, medical evidence, surveillance footage, and damages tied to the claimed injuries.
Radiology and Neuroradiology Expert Witnesses (Plaintiff)
Dr. Rebecca Johnson, testifying for the plaintiff, provided radiology and neuroradiology findings that, in her medical assessment, were consistent with the cervical spine injuries reported after the elevator’s abrupt stop, and her testimony appeared in the record as part of the medical evidence addressing causation. Her contribution in this case formed part of the medical evaluation of injuries following the elevator’s sudden stop.
Urology Expert Witnesses (Plaintiff)
Dr. Michael Ciccone testified for the plaintiff and stated that, in his medical opinion based on the records he reviewed, the elevator incident was consistent with the development of permanent erectile dysfunction. His testimony became part of the evidence the jury considered when reviewing the consequences of the elevator’s abrupt stop.
Orthopedic Medicine Expert Witnesses (Defense)
Dr. David Irwin Rubinfeld testified for the defense and described the injuries as sprains, while acknowledging that the symptoms could relate to the elevator incident if the underlying history was accurate. His testimony provided an alternative interpretation of the plaintiff’s condition in the context of the elevator event.
Neurology Expert Witnesses (Defense)
Dr. Elliot A. Grossman testified for the defense and stated that the plaintiff’s complaints reflected preexisting conditions rather than injuries caused by the elevator’s sudden stop. His contribution offered a contrasting medical perspective that the jury weighed against other expert testimony.
Elevator Engineering and Mechanical Expert Witnesses (Plaintiff and Defense)
Plaintiff’s expert James Filippone testified that, in his engineering analysis, the elevator’s abrupt stop could have generated forces he estimated at four to five g’s, and he explained how those estimates aligned with the impact described in the record. Defense expert John Delorenzi testified about the elevator’s mechanical systems, speed capacities, and braking functions, while acknowledging that he did not know the car’s actual descent speed when the braking system engaged. Elevator engineering and mechanical experts are often engaged to explain braking behavior, force generation, and how an elevator responds during abnormal stops.
Claims and Medical Billing Expert Witnesses – Plaintiff
Colleen Rilling testified for the plaintiff as a senior claims representative and stated that, in her assessment, the medical bills were related to the elevator incident and were reasonable and customary. Her testimony contributed to the evidence on medical expenses considered by the jury.
Verdict Sheet Questions Must Address Proximate Cause
The reversal shows why verdict sheets must include clear proximate-cause questions, especially when a plaintiff claims several injuries from one incident.
Mechanical and Medical Evidence Should Be Connected Clearly
The case relied on the relationship between estimated g-forces, elevator braking behavior, diagnostic findings, and reported symptoms. Presenting those points together helped the jury evaluate causation.
Surveillance Footage Can Affect Either Side’s Argument
Although Schindler introduced surveillance footage, the court later described parts of the footage as consistent with the plaintiff’s medical limitations. Video evidence can support or weaken a claim depending on how it compares with the medical record.
Procedural Accuracy Can Determine the Trial Outcome
Even when negligence for the elevator malfunction is admitted, unclear or incomplete jury instructions can require a new trial. The missing proximate-cause question became a central reason the first verdict was reversed.
Multiple Evidence Types Can Strengthen the Damages Presentation
The combination of imaging, urology, neurology, orthopedic, psychological, and engineering evidence gave the jury a broader view of the claimed injuries and their connection to the elevator incident.
The New Jersey elevator accident lawsuit centered on a service elevator at Headquarters Plaza that shook, descended between floors, stopped abruptly, and allegedly threw Richard L. Tufaro into a metal panel. The case moved from a 2012 judgment exceeding $4.8 million after prejudgment interest to a 2013 appellate reversal after the verdict sheet omitted a required proximate-cause question, then to a 2014 retrial that resulted in an award of approximately $8 million. Later post-trial and appellate review left the award in place, with interest bringing the final reported outcome to approximately $10.6 million. The litigation turned on elevator movement, braking forces, medical evidence, surveillance footage, injury causation, damages, and the need for jury findings that clearly connect an accident to the injuries claimed.
What happened during the elevator incident?
The elevator shook, descended between floors, stopped abruptly, and threw Richard L. Tufaro against a metal panel. He reported injuries involving his neck, back, and shoulder.
Why was the first verdict reversed?
The New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the first verdict because the verdict sheet did not ask the jury to decide whether the elevator event caused the specific injuries claimed. That omission required a retrial on all issues except Schindler’s admitted negligence.
What was the result of the retrial?
The second jury awarded approximately $8 million after reviewing evidence about the elevator’s movement, the abrupt stop, and Mr. Tufaro’s long-term medical condition.
Did the court leave the retrial verdict in place?
Yes. After post-trial and appellate review, the award was ultimately left in place. The court record included medical testimony, engineering evidence, surveillance footage, and damages evidence supporting the jury’s conclusions.
How did the judgment reach approximately $10.6 million?
Interest applied to the retrial award increased the final reported outcome to approximately $10.6 million.
What did the case involve beyond the elevator malfunction itself?
The litigation also involved proximate cause, jury-instruction issues, engineering testimony about braking forces, medical evidence, surveillance footage, and damages tied to the claimed injuries.
Elevators
Mechanical Failure
Mechanical Systems
Mechanical Testing
Accident Investigation and Reconstruction
Orthopedic Surgeon
Damages Calculations
Real Estate Appraisal, +3
Real Estate
Mold, +4
Real Estate