Filed: Dec. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 15-2355 _ BETANIA TORIBIO, Administratrix of the Estate of John Joaquin Toribio, Deceased and Individually, Appellant v. PINE HAVEN LLC, d/b/a Pine Haven Campground, and Pine Haven Camping Resort; DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENTS INC, a/k/a Diversified Investments, LLC, a/k/a Diversified Investments Services, LLC v. HEATHER MILLER, a/k/a Heather Dioscon; TIMOTHY MILLER; ANTHONY DIOSCON; MICHELLE WHEELER _ Appeal from the United S
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 15-2355 _ BETANIA TORIBIO, Administratrix of the Estate of John Joaquin Toribio, Deceased and Individually, Appellant v. PINE HAVEN LLC, d/b/a Pine Haven Campground, and Pine Haven Camping Resort; DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENTS INC, a/k/a Diversified Investments, LLC, a/k/a Diversified Investments Services, LLC v. HEATHER MILLER, a/k/a Heather Dioscon; TIMOTHY MILLER; ANTHONY DIOSCON; MICHELLE WHEELER _ Appeal from the United St..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 15-2355
________________
BETANIA TORIBIO, Administratrix of the Estate of
John Joaquin Toribio, Deceased and Individually,
Appellant
v.
PINE HAVEN LLC, d/b/a Pine Haven Campground, and Pine Haven
Camping Resort; DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENTS INC,
a/k/a Diversified Investments, LLC,
a/k/a Diversified Investments Services, LLC
v.
HEATHER MILLER, a/k/a Heather Dioscon; TIMOTHY MILLER;
ANTHONY DIOSCON; MICHELLE WHEELER
________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-12-cv-04975)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 15, 2016
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 7, 2016)
________________
OPINION*
________________
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Betania Toribio, Administratrix of the Estate of John Joaquin Toribio, filed suit
against Pine Haven, LLC alleging that the drowning death of her son, John, resulted from
Pine Haven’s negligence. After trial, the jury found that John Toribio was 93% liable for
his drowning and that Pine Haven was 7% negligent. This finding resulted in a no-cause-
of-action verdict in favor of Pine Haven. A no cause of action results under New Jersey
law when a plaintiff is determined to be more than 50% liable; when this occurs, the
court will dismiss the action against the defendant. Betania Toribio appeals, arguing that
the District Judge exhibited bias and partiality and that he erred in failing to provide the
jury with a proper instruction. We disagree and thus affirm.
I. Background
In August 2010, fourteen-year-old John Toribio spent a weekend with his friend
and friend’s parents at Pine Haven Campground in Ocean View, New Jersey. The
campground’s amenities include a swimming lake, playgrounds, and basketball courts.
On the night of August 8, 2010, John and several other teenagers took a dip in the
campground’s man-made swimming lake. The lake was not fenced off, patrolled by
lifeguards or other personnel, or monitored by surveillance cameras. The lake was also
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2
dark. Around 8:15 p.m., John started splashing in the water, and his friends lost sight of
him. Not long after, emergency personnel recovered his body and pronounced him dead
at the scene.
The decedent’s mother, Betania Toribio (“Toribio”), filed suit against Pine Haven
arguing that its negligence caused her son’s death because it failed to (1) place a fence
around the lake, (2) install artificial lighting, (3) install surveillance cameras, and (4)
provide roving security throughout the campground. The jury trial spanned 11 days. In
the end, the jury found both John and Pine Haven negligent and apportioned 93% of the
fault to John and 7% of the fault to Pine Haven. Because John was more than 50% at
fault, the Court dismissed the claims against Pine Haven.
Toribio now appeals the District Court’s order. She argues that the District Judge
undermined her case and that he should have given the jury an instruction on what is a
“duty voluntary assumed.”
II. Discussion
A.
While federal judges may not assume the role of an advocate, they may question
witnesses because judges are more than “mere moderator[s].” United States v. Wilensky,
757 F.2d 594 (3d Cir. 1985); accord United States v. Beaty,
722 F.2d 1090, 1092–93 (3d
Cir. 1983) (elaborating on “judicial participation in trials”); FED. R. EVID. 614(b) (“The
court may examine a witness regardless of who calls the witness.”). In Liteky v. United
States, the Supreme Court held that “judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are
critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases,
3
ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge. . . [unless] they reveal such a high
degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.” 510 U.S. 540,
555 (1994).
Toribio alleges two indiscretions: (1) the District Judge’s commentary and
questioning during the testimony of her fact and expert witnesses amounted to advocacy;
and (2) the District Judge mocked her fact and her expert witnesses throughout the trial.
To support these allegations, Toribo cites various points in the trial transcript when the
District Judge interjected during direct- and cross-examination. These interjections
consisted of questions and comments both in front of and in the absence of the jury.
While the trial transcript is vast, the District Judge’s questions or comments in the jury’s
presence include phrases such as “I mean, it could be a hundred acres or 200 acres,” “Ask
proper questions,” and “You weren’t – you weren’t paying attention to whether there
were signs anywhere, were you?” Transcript of Record at 202, 457, 753, Toribio v. Pine
Haven, LLC, No. 12-4975 (JEI)(JS) (D.N.J. May 14, 2015). Outside the jury’s presence
during a hearing to qualify experts, the Judge stated “You’re flabbergasted. I’m trying to
keep this case from turning into a nightmare and I’m going to let the jury decide it, but
quite candidly, I think there’s going to be a big chance if they come out for the plaintiff,
I’m going to set it aside, based on [the witness’s testimony].” Tr. at 383.
When confronted with allegations of bias, we consider factors such as the number
of times the judge interfered in the trial, the extent of that interference, and the degree to
which the judge exhibited partisanship. See Beaty, 722 F.2d at 1093;
Wilensky, 757 F.2d
at 598–599; see also United States v. Ottaviano,
738 F.3d 586, 597 (3d Cir. 2013).
4
After reviewing the record, we disagree that the District Judge demonstrated a bias
or partiality that would have changed the jury’s verdict. For example, we disagree that he
was acting as an advocate. When the District Judge questioned or interrupted the
witnesses, he did so to clarify the testimony. Indeed, at one point during the trial
Toribio’s counsel thanked the Judge for “clarification.” Tr. at 249. Additionally, his
interjections are found in only a small part of the trial transcript, and some of his
responses related to evidentiary objections of the parties. The interruptions mentioned
were also not partial to one party, as they were of counsel to both sides. (Toribio also
cites to questions and comments made during discussions outside the jury’s presence to
demonstrate bias and partiality; however, because the jurors were not present, these
discussions could not have influenced them.)
To Toribio’s second point—that the District Judge mocked her fact and expert
witnesses—she has not demonstrated bias or partiality. Even if, at times, the District
Judge appeared frustrated or condescending, that is not enough to establish bias or
prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Liteky, 510 U.S. 540, 555–56 (1994) (noting that
impatience, dissatisfaction, anger, or sternness do not establish bias or partiality). While
it was not advisable for the Judge to make these comments, they appeared to exhibit mere
frustration and not bias.
We discern in this context no judicial bias or partiality.
B.
5
Toribio argues also that the District Judge failed to instruct the jury properly,
specifically, that the jury should have been charged on “Duty Voluntarily Assumed.” In
New Jersey, state courts impose “duties of reasonable care on defendants who voluntarily
undertake services.” Ceneviva v. Homes, No. 09-2452, 2011 WL 2470596, *1, *3
(D.N.J. June 20, 2011) (citing Thorne v. Miller,
722 A.2d 626, 629 (N.J. Super. Ct. L.
Div. 1998)). For example, a person voluntarily assumes a duty when voluntarily holding
a ladder for another person. See Ceneviva,
2011 WL 2470596, at *3 (“reliance by the
dependent party is foreseeable, the risk of harm is serious, and the party assuming the
duty could reasonably prevent foreseeable harm by exercising reasonable care”). A
driver also assumes a duty when he waves to another driver in order to facilitate safe
passage. See Thorne v. Miller, 722 A.2d, 626, 628 (N.J. Super. Ct. L. Div. 1998).
Absent these efforts to aid others, an ordinary person would not otherwise owe another a
duty. Toribio requested that the District Court instruct the jury on this type of duty.
Here, however, Pine Haven already owed John Toribio a duty because the
campground had a preexisting duty to exercise reasonable care to all guests. It was not
voluntary. Instead of giving the “duty voluntarily assumed” charge, the District Judge
instructed the jury on all of the elements of Toribio’s liability claim, including the duty
owed, how it could be breached, and how harm could be caused. He instructed the jury
that the “property owner owes a duty to exercise reasonable care . . . to persons who . . .
are allowed to have a right to be on the premises.” See Tr. at 1351. This was a correct
instruction.
6
* * * * *
In summary, the conduct of the District Judge did not prejudice Toribio and the
instruction to the jury was not incorrect. Thus we affirm.
7
