Plaintiff Nicolette Pippis was injured when she slipped and fell while leaving a building owned by defendant PDC, after visiting defendant MKG, a tenant in the building. She claimed that, as she walked down the stairs, she was holding onto the handrail. The handrail ended short of a few steps which she claimed caused her to slip and fall. The issue in Pippis v. PDC 16-20 Hudson Place Realty, LLC, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2108 (App. Div. Sept. 6, 2024) was whether plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence on the issue of proximate causation to have her case presented to a jury.
Plaintiff, who was 9 months pregnant at the time, had been at the building for a prenatal massage at MKG, which was located on the second floor in the building. As she walked down the steps to leave the building, she fell near the bottom of the steps, breaking her ankle. She claimed that, as she walked down the stairs, she was holding onto the handrail. When she got towards the bottom steps, the railing ended and there was no lighting, causing her to miss the step and fall. She testified in her deposition that she attempted to grab for the handrail, but the railing cut short a few steps. She denied that she tripped.
Plaintiff presented an opinion from an architectural expert that the handrail for the stairs did not extend over the entire bottom tread and stopped short of the edge of the final step by 2½ inches. He explained that current building codes would require the handrail for these steps to extend at least 10¼ inches past the bottom step. He opined that Plaintiff lost her balance and fell at the bottom of the stairway because the handrail was short and she could not grasp it. He further concluded that the lack of handrail coverage over the entire bottom tread was a dangerous condition that contributed to her accident.
Following the conclusion of discovery, the defendants filed for a summary judgment. The trial court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint. The judge determined that plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation because there was conflicting information about the cause of her fall.
Different versions of how the accident happened were in plaintiff’s medical records. The hospital records indicated that plaintiff fell from the fourth step and hurt her ankle, the emergency personnel reported that plaintiff explained that while she was walking down the steps, she tripped and slid down the last four steps. Last, the triage nurse from the Medical Center commented that she slipped down four stairs.
In the plaintiff’s complaint, she alleged that defendants’ failure to provide adequate lighting and adequate railings caused her to slip and fall down the last 3-4 steps and suffer personal injuries.
The trial judge found that there was a contradiction between plaintiff’s testimony, the complaint, and her expert as to what caused the accident. Accordingly, he found that plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation and dismissed her complaint.
The plaintiff appealed this order for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence to present the issue of proximate causation to a jury. There was also an issue appealed concerning spoliation of evidence because the surveillance video of the accident was not preserved. However, that issue did not factor into the Appellate Division’s issue on appeal as to whether the summary judgment should have been granted.
The Appellate Division noted that the question of proximate cause “asks whether the actual harm suffered was a reasonable consequence of the defendant’s actual act or omission.” It would suffice if it is a substantial contributing factor to the harm suffered. The Appellate Division further noted that proximate cause is “generally a question for the jury.”
The Court disagreed with the trial court judge’s finding that proximate cause was lacking. The Appellate Division found that “a reasonable jury could find that additional railing at the end of plaintiff’s fall path could have helped plaintiff prevent or mitigate her injuries.” Further, the Appellate Division found that “[b]ecause the absence of any railing at the end of the staircase may have contributed to plaintiff’s injuries, the issue of proximate causation should have been left to a jury.” Hence the Court reversed the trial court judge’s ruling and remanded the matter back for further proceedings.
