Jury Favors Costco in Premises Liability Case After Finding Plaintiff 60% Negligent

Bennett V. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Case Background

On October 28, 2021, Michael Bennett filed a personal injury lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corporation alleging premises liability and negligence. The case was filed in the United States District Court, New Jersey (Trenton). Zahid N. Quraishi presided over this case. [Case number: 3:21cv19400]

Cause

On February 3, 2021, Plaintiff Michael Bennett was at Costco store number 749 in Mount Laurel, Ocean County, New Jersey. While on the Defendant’s premises, he sustained serious injuries due to the Defendant’s negligence.

Injury

As a direct result of the negligence and carelessness of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs sustained serious and permanent personal injuries. The Plaintiff experienced significant pain and would continue to endure pain in the future. Additionally, as a proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, the Plaintiff suffered both physical and emotional injuries. These injuries included both temporary and permanent conditions, causing considerable pain and anguish.

Damages

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

• Plaintiff(s): Michael Bennett
  • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Harold J. Geer

• Defendant(s): Costco Wholesale Corporation
  • Counsel for Defendant(s): Robert A. Ballou

Claims

The premises liability lawsuit contained allegations of negligence and carelessness against Defendants and held that the negligence was the direct cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.

Defense

The defense argued that the accident and damages outlined in the Complaint were caused solely by the Plaintiff’s negligence. Alternatively, the incident resulted from the actions of third parties over whom the Defendant(s) had no control. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was comparatively negligent, and such negligence exceeded that of the Defendant(s).

Additionally, the cause of action falls under the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1, and the Defendant(s) is entitled to all defenses, credits, rights, and set-offs provided by this law. The Defendant(s) also fulfilled all obligations toward the Plaintiff(s) under any agreement in effect at the time the cause of action arose. Any negligence attributed to the Defendant(s) did not directly cause the alleged damages or injuries. Lastly, the Defendant(s) owed no duty to the Plaintiff(s) and, as a result, cannot be held liable in tort.

Jury Verdict

On November 13, 2024, the jury returned a verdict of no cause for action in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, based upon the jury finding that Defendant was 40% negligent and Plaintiff was 60% negligent.

On November 15, 2024, a judgment was entered consistent with the verdict.

Court Documents:

Available upon request