New Jersey
951 Haddonfield Rd.
Suite A-2B
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
512 Township Line Rd.
Suite 200-220
Blue Bell, PA 19422
New York
404 5th Avenue
3rd Floor
New York, NY 10018
DC / Maryland
Rockville Plaza
2275 Research Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20850
4200 Regent Street
Suite 200
Columbus, Ohio 43219
12655 W. Jefferson Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90066
The attorneys of Clark & Fox won Summary Judgment on behalf of their clients, Atlee D. Metz and Carolyn H. Metz. Mr. and Mrs. Metz were sued in the case of Foster v. Roblyer, et al., in Cape May County, New Jersey. Mr. and Mrs. Metz were owners of a home located in Sea Isle City, New Jersey and on Memorial Day Weekend, 2013, Plaintiff Foster was stuck in the face by a co-defendant in the case, Roblyer, while both were at the Metz’s property. Roblyer was a guest of Mr. and Mrs. Metz’s adult son, David, and Foster was also a guest attending a social gathering at the home that weekend. Mr. and Mrs. Metz were not present for the gathering and had no involvement in the planning of the events to take place that weekend, other than giving their adult son permission to use their home for the weekend. Plaintiff filed suit in Cape May County against Roblyer, David Metz, and Mr. and Mrs. Metz. The claims against Mr. and Mrs. Metz were in large part based on the allegation that, as owners of the home, they owed a duty of care to Plaintiff to protect him and prevent such an attack from occurring. Plaintiff further alleged that Roblyer had certain violent propensities and claimed that Mr. and Mrs. Metz, having known Roblyer since he was young, knew of these alleged propensities and should have taken action to protect Plaintiff.

The attorneys of Clark & Fox vigorously defended Mr. and Mrs. Metz against these claims. Through depositions, we were able to establish that there was no evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Metz had any knowledge of Roblyer’s alleged propensities. Further, we were able to prove that no party alleged that Mr. and Mrs. Metz had anything to do with the events of that weekend other than allowing their adult son to use the house. Plaintiff attempted to rely upon alleged knowledge of Roblyer’s propensities held by Mr. and Mrs. Metz’s adult son and adult grandson, who was also present that weekend.

Summary Judgment is only granted where there are no genuine disputes of fact. In ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment, the court views the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, here the plaintiff. Despite this high standard, the Court found that there was no genuine dispute in the evidentiary record that would result in Mr. and Mrs. Metz being found liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The Court found that while there was evidence related to  Roblyer’s alleged propensities, there was no evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Metz had any knowledge of that evidence and therefore could not have reasonably foreseen that an attack would occur and that they should have made some effort to prevent it. The attorneys of Clark & Fox were able to have all claims against Mr. and Mrs. Metz dismissed as a result of an aggressive defense establishing that the plaintiff could not prove his case against Mr. and Mrs. Metz and showing that Summary Judgment was appropriate.