Plaintiff Frances Hice tripped and fell and suffered injuries as a result of an uneven public sidewalk slab on Watchung Avenue in Bloomfield. The sidewalk abutted a private residence owned by defendants Jose Cruz and Angelica Delacruz. The sidewalk was adjacent to a road (Watchung Avenue) owned by the County of Essex. The issue in Hice v. State of New Jersey, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2039 (App. Div. Oct. 28, 2025) was whether the County could be held responsible for a fall which occurred due to an uneven sidewalk adjacent to its roadway.
The uneven sidewalk was caused by tree roots from a tree located on the Cruz-Delacruz property. Plaintiff initially sued the Township, the State, the County, and the homeowners. By the time the appeal occurred, the only remaining defendant was Essex County.
The County owned the Watchung Avenue roadway in Bloomfield but, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 27:16-8, it owned the roadway between the curblines, excluding sidewalks. The sidewalk itself where plaintiff fell was not owned by the County, the homeowners, nor the Township of Bloomfield. Rather, the sidewalk was considered a right of way and residential property owners would be responsible for maintaining it.
About two years before plaintiff fell, the County began a resurfacing project and was mandated, as part of the project, to install curb ramps compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) at the corners of all roadways. This project included installation of a ramp near the sidewalk slab where plaintiff tripped. The scope of the project, however, was limited to replacing the existing pavement markings, sidewalk and curb necessary for the installation of the handicap ramps.
It was undisputed that plaintiff did not fall on the handicap ramp or on the slab next to the handicap ramp. Rather, plaintiff fell three slabs away from the end of the sidewalk where one of the new ramps was installed. Plaintiff did concede that this distance was approximately 12 feet from the newly installed ramp.
Plaintiff obtained an expert report from an engineer, Dr. Wayne Nolte. Dr. Nolte acknowledged that the property adjacent to the sidewalk was owned by the homeowners and that the sidewalk’s maintenance was the responsibility of the abutting property owner. In his report, however, he stated that the sidewalk between the handicap ramps was required by the ADA standard to have elevation differentials no more than ¼ of an inch. He concluded that the installation of the handicap ramps exceeded this height differential and, therefore, did not comply with the ADA standard. But, he did not dispute that the location of the elevation differential, where plaintiff fell, was not on the handicap ramp, nor on the slab next to the ramp.
The defendant homeowners and the County filed for summary judgment at the trial court level. A summary judgment dismissal was granted by the trial court judge, dismissing out both the homeowners and the County.
While plaintiff appealed both orders for summary judgment, he settled out with the homeowners before the appeal was heard. Thus, upon appeal, the Appellate Division only dealt with the challenge to the order granting summary judgment to the County.
The Appellate Division pointed out that a public entity may be held liable for an injury caused by a condition on its public property. But, liability as to a public entity would only pertain to the property owned or controlled by the public entity.
Plaintiff argued that the County constructed the ramp in violation of ADA due to the height differential. Plaintiff argued that the uneven sidewalk caused the plaintiff to trip and fall and be injured. Further, plaintiff contended that the County created the dangerous condition and, therefore, it had actual or constructive notice of it.
The Appellate Division pointed out the flaws in these assertions. First, it was undisputed that the plaintiff fell on the sidewalk approximately three sidewalk slabs from the County’s worksite and not next to the handicap ramp. There was no evidence that the County owned or was responsible for the entire sidewalk. In fact, the Township Code clearly provided that the abutting property owner was responsible for the installation, repair, or replacement of sidewalks.
Further, the County did not take control of that portion of the sidewalk when it began construction of the ADA compliant ramp. The record did not show that the uneven sidewalk where plaintiff fell was caused by the County’s work. Because there was no evidence showing that the County took control over the entire sidewalk, it had no legal duty to repair the part of the sidewalk where plaintiff fell.
Plaintiff argued that when the County undertook the responsibility of installing the handicap ramp, it had an obligation to ensure that there was nothing greater than ¼ of an inch height differential along the entire sidewalk. The Appellate Division pointed out that the plaintiff provided no legal support for extending this legal duty to a portion of the sidewalk under the control of the abutting property owner and not the County.
Hence, the Court declined “to expand a public entity’s duty to inspect and potentially repair sidewalks abutting County roadways not under their control or ownership to ameliorate any potential hazard.” Because the Appellate Division found no genuine of issue of fact as to whether the County owned or controlled the sidewalk where plaintiff fell, the Court found that the trial court judge had properly granted summary judgment to the County and it affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.
