Plaintiffs Charles and Deborah Stenger sued their landlord, defendant Bulent Koroglu, for Charles Stenger’s trip and fall that occurred on the bottom step on the stairway to plaintiffs’ leased residence. They allege that their landlord failed to warn them of a latent defect in the stairway. The issue in Stenger v. Koroglu, 2022 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 90 (App. Div. Jan. 24, 2022) was whether the defendant landlord could be held responsible for Charles Stenger’s injury suffered in the fall.
Plaintiffs leased a single-family residence from defendant and moved in on September 15, 2014. They were the exclusive tenants of the landlord, Bulent Koroglu. They lived there for more than two years until Charles Stenger fell on January 19, 2017. The accident resulted from a trip and fall that occurred on the bottom step of the stairway to plaintiffs’ leased residence. Plaintiffs used this interior stairway on a daily basis, going up and down the stairs “hundreds, if not thousands of times . . . without incident.” Additionally, they routinely cleaned the stairway’s handrails and even painted the risers of the stairs on multiple occasions. The landlord, however, made no alterations or repairs to the stairway during the tenancy period.
Plaintiff Charles Stenger was injured while descending the stairway. It was his testimony that his right foot was on the second step but “it just didn’t fit right” and his left leg “missed the bottom step tread and jammed on the foyer,” which caused him to fall.
Plaintiffs obtained an expert who opined that the stairway had variations in the height and width of the stair treads. Further, the expert opined that these variations violated the building code and constituted a “hidden defect.” The plaintiffs failed to present any evidence, however, to suggest that the defendant landlord “either affirmatively or constructively concealed the alleged dangerous condition.”
At the trial court level, the defendant landlord filed for a summary judgment dismissal. The trial court judge granted that motion, finding that the plaintiffs “were aware of the condition of the stairs and any associated risk of harm posed by that condition before the accident.” The trial court judge also found that under the lease, the plaintiffs were exclusively responsible for the stairway’s upkeep.
Upon appeal, the Appellate Division first considered whether the defendant landlord owed a duty to the plaintiffs. The duty owed by a landlord to a tenant has evolved over the years. The Court noted that “the critical inquiry remains whether the lessee was aware of the dangerous condition that caused injury.”
Here, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court decision. The Appellate Division focused on the critical inquiry as to whether plaintiffs were aware of the “alleged dangerous condition.” It noted that the undisputed facts showed that the defendant landlord had not entered the premises at any point during plaintiffs’ tenancy, that the plaintiffs were solely responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the stairway, even painting the risers in the recent past and, finally, “plaintiffs had utilized the subject stairway hundreds if not thousands of times throughout their tenancy without incident, as it was the apartment’s sole means of egress.” Thus, the Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s decision, granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant landlord, dismissing the lawsuit.
