Defendant Rock Pile Properties, LLC (“Rock Pile”) owned a building in Garwood, which it leased to Defendant Statewide Fence Contractors, LLC (“Statewide”), a residential, commercial, and industrial fence company. According to the lease, Statewide was required to make all repairs and maintain the property, including the roof. Plaintiff John Gudoski (“John”), had prior experience working for his father’s company, Statewide Restoration, Inc., restoring and repairing building cracks. He suffered an injury in the course of inspecting a masonry crack from the defendant’s roof. The issue in Gudoski v. Rock Pile Properties, LLC., 2022 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2031 (App. Div. Nov. 3, 2022) was whether defendant Rock Pile could be liable for the injuries suffered by plaintiff when he fell off the roof to inspect a crack.
The facts are somewhat in dispute as to whether John was present on the property as an independent contractor of the tenant Statewide or a friend doing a favor for another friend. According to Statewide’s owner, John came to the property to look at the building and offer a friend some advice about a crack in the building. When he arrived, there was an ongoing Labor Day picnic on the premises. John observed the building perimeter, and he noticed some large cracks in the masonry in what appeared to be a corner separating from the sidewalk. He told Statewide’s owner that he needed to go on the roof to fully examine the crack. According to several witnesses, Statewide’s owner told John not to go onto the roof. However, John went up on the roof and, while inspecting it, stepped onto a skylight and fell through it onto the concrete ground. As a result, he suffered several injuries, including to his shoulder, hand, and mouth.
Plaintiff sued the property owner Rock Pile, as well as Statewide for negligence damages. Both defendants filed for summary judgment prior to trial. The motion judge found that while there was a genuine issue of material facts as to the nature of the relationship between John and Statewide, he did grant the summary judgment motion as to Rock Pile. He found that the owner did not owe a duty of care to John merely because it owned the building. This order was appealed to the Appellate Division.
Upon appeal, the Court noted that whether a defendant owes a legal duty to another, and the scope of that duty, are generally questions of law for the court to decide. To determine the scope of the duty, a court would make an inquiry involving “identifying, weighing, and balancing several factors – the relationship with the parties, the nature of the attendant risk, the opportunity and ability to exercise care, and the public interest in the proposed solution.”
In applying this standard to determine if a duty existed between Rock Pile and plaintiff, the Appellate Division found that none of these factors were met.
The Court found that there was no evidence that John and the defendant owner had a relationship of any type. The Appellate Division found it was not foreseeable that John would be on the roof and fall through a skylight. There was no notice, actual, or otherwise to the defendant owner and this defendant neither maintained a presence on the site, nor was it responsible for repairs to the building. Thus, under these facts, there was no reasonable opportunity for the defendant owner to exercise care. Finally, the Appellate Division found that they were “unconvinced public policy supports the imposition of liability on defendant, given it was Statewide who brought John onto the property it controlled pursuant to the lease.”
Thus, based upon the Appellate Division’s review of the facts and the law, it affirmed the trial court decision, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint as to the defendant owner Rock Pile Properties, LLC.
