Partner Manuel González Serves on an Executive Committee for New Jersey State Bar Association

By Matthew V. Villani 

“Before recovery may be had, a duty must exist in law, and a failure in that duty must be proved as a fact.” Mergel v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co., 41 N.J. Super.372, 379 (App. Div. 1956). There can be no recovery in a negligence action if the actor violated no duty owed to the injured party. Karuth v. Geller, 54 N.J. Super.442, 453 (App. Div. 1959). Furthermore, “negligence is tested by whether the reasonable, prudent person at the time and place should recognize and foresee an unreasonable risk or likelihood of harm or danger to others.” Rappaport v. Nichols, 31 N.J. 188, 201 (1959).Therefore, the standard of care must be that of “a reasonable person of ordinary prudence” under the same or similar circumstances.” Butler v. Acme Markets, Inc., 177 N.J. Super.279, 286 (1981).  [Read more…]