5/17/17
Jennifer and Robert Paul v. Quick Chek Corporation and Unifirst Corporation.

Plaintiff alleges that on February 1, 2013, she was a patron at the Quik Chek located in Avenel, New Jersey. As she was exiting the store, she tripped and fell over a floor mat that she claims was not properly placed down. Plaintiff attributed her fall to the improper placement of the mat by Unifirst and Quick Chek’s failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. As a result of her fall, plaintiff sustained a torn rotator cuff in her left shoulder requiring arthroscopic surgery.

Our client Unifirst was brought into the case by Quik Chek as a third party defendant. Prior to the close of discovery, plaintiff filed a motion to amend their complaint to include Unifirst as a direct defendant. In response, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint on the basis that plaintiff failed to name Unifirst as a direct defendant during the applicable statute of limitations. The Court agreed and denied plaintiff’s application to amend their complaint to include Unifirst as a direct defendant. Thereafter, Quik Chek filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint on the basis that plaintiff cannot prove that they created or had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition on the premises. Judge Carter granted Quik Chek’s motion which resulted in a dismissal of all claims against the defendants as a matter of law.