Plaintiff Shneequa Easterling had been walking on a public sidewalk abutting defendant’s home when she slipped and fell on ice, injuring her neck and back, as well as her right ankle. She filed a lawsuit against the defendant homeowner, George Johnson, who owned the two-family home abutting the public sidewalk. The issue in Easterling v. Johnson, 2023 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 905 (App. Div. June 9, 2023) was whether the defendant homeowner could be liable to the plaintiff for the injuries incurred while walking on the public sidewalk abutting his two-family home.
Plaintiff contended that the defendant was operating a multi-family rental property and was negligent in failing to warn pedestrians about the ice that existed on the sidewalk next to his property. She claimed that he failed to keep the premises in a safe condition.
At the trial court level, the defendant moved for a summary judgment, arguing that as a residential homeowner, he had no duty to clear snow and ice from the sidewalk abutting his property. The trial court judge agreed with the defendant and found that his property was residential in nature and, thus, he had no duty to remove snow or ice on the public sidewalk.
This order was appealed to the Appellate Division. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the order granting summary judgment should be reversed because defendant could be held liable for the icy condition of the sidewalk abutting his property, even if it was residential. She contended that he could be liable if, in clearing the ice and snow from the sidewalk next to his property, he increased the hazard by introducing some element of danger.
The Appellate Division noted prior case law that “absent negligent construction or repair,” the residential property owner “does not owe a duty of care to a pedestrian injured as a result of the condition of the sidewalk abutting the landowner’s property.” On the other hand, commercial property owners do have such a duty to maintain the sidewalk.
The Court found that there was no evidence in the record that the defendant had made any repairs or otherwise created a dangerous condition on the sidewalk next to his home prior to plaintiff’s fall. There was also no proof that the defendant’s property was primarily commercial in nature. The record was devoid of evidence that the defendant had utilized his property for any purpose in the past 40 years as other than his own residence. There was no evidence that he had rented or generated a profit from any portion of the property. Thus, the record fairly established that the nature and purpose of defendant’s owner occupied property was primarily residential and not commercial.
Thus, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and affirmed the decision.
