By: Victoria M. Adeleke, Law Clerk
Edited by: Betsy G. Ramos, Esq.
Plaintiff Bryan Callahan sued defendants Tri-Borough Sand and Stone, Eureka Stone Quarry, Inc., and James D. Morrissey, Inc. for severe injuries suffered by Bryan when he struck a steel cable riding his dirt bike on the quarry grounds owned by defendants. The defendants successfully filed a motion for summary judgment, obtaining a dismissal of the lawsuit. The issue in Callahan v. Tri-Borough Sand and Stone, 2024 N.J. Super. LEXIS 42 (App. Div. May 20, 2024) was whether the defendants committed willful misconduct by not lowering the steel cable or were immune from liability under N.J.S.A. 39:3C-18.
This statute provides immunity to property owners for accidents involving certain types of vehicles, including dirt bikes, unless the owner provides express consent for the vehicle to be operated on the property. But, there is an exception to this immunity for the willful or malicious creation of a hazardous condition by the property owner.
The day of the incident, a Sunday afternoon, while the quarry was closed, the plaintiff and his friend rode their dirt bikes on the defendants’ property for several hours before the plaintiff struck a steel cable elevated three feet from the ground. The plaintiff stated he was riding at about 45 mph when he struck the cable. The cable was part of the machinery used to dredge the quarry. The plaintiff claimed he had ridden his dirt bike on the defendants’ property many times before and always checked for hazards. Plaintiff admitted he never received express consent from defendants to ride on their property. However, plaintiff contended that other people, including his mother, had operated ATVs on the defendants’ property since the 1990s and were never told riding was prohibited.
The defendants filed a summary judgment motion, asserting they were immune from liability under N.J.S.A. 39:3C-18 because Bryan did not have permission to be on their land and their erecting of the cable was not willful or malicious. The plaintiff opposed the motion and sought leave to file an amended complaint to assert that the cable created a hazardous condition that constituted willful and wanton conduct and eroded their immunity. The trial court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion, finding that the defendants did not erect the cable to deter or harm dirt bike riders but for a separate and distinct business purpose.
On appeal, due to the lack of case law under N.J.S.A. 39:3C-18, the Appellate Division applied a similar statute, the Landowner’s Liability Act (LLA), N.J.S.A. 2A:42A-1 to -10. The LLA is a similar act intended to shield liability for private owners of rural and semi-rural lands used by the public for sports and recreational activities. Under this statutory provision, like N.J.S.A. 39:3C-18, landowners “owe [] no duty to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for sport and recreational activities.” N.J.S.A. 2A:42A-3(a). Additionally, landowners did not need to “give warning of any hazardous condition of the land or in connection with the use of any structure or by reason of any activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes.” N.J.S.A. 2A:42A-3(a). But, the LLA does not limit liability “for willful or malicious failure to guard, or to warn against, a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity.” N.J.S.A. 2A:42A-4.
In the LLA case of Krevics v. Ayars, the Law Division declined to extend immunity to the defendants because they acted willfully when they allowed the placement of a cable across a motorbike trail on their property they knew the public used. Conversely, the Appellate Division extended immunity to the defendants in Lauber v. Narbut because the hazard was directly related to their use of the property. Additionally, the record in Lauber v. Narbut lacked evidence that the defendants erected the hazard willfully or maliciously.
Applying this law, in Callahan, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court’s decision. The Appellate Division found that the record contained no evidence that the defendants acted maliciously or willfully in failing to lower the cable when the plaintiff did not have permission to enter. The plaintiff’s testimony that the public had been riding on the quarry since the 1990s was circumstantial. The evidence fell short of showing that defendants knew motor bikers were riding on the quarry and acted willfully or maliciously in erecting the cable.
Further, the court found that the cable served a separate and legitimate purpose. The defendants’ expert testified that the cable was essential to the dredging operation at the property. This expert stated that although there were no warning signs about the cable, only employees were allowed in the area and were made aware of the danger of the cable at training.
Thus, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court decision, dismissing the suit and rendering the plaintiff’s motion to leave to file an amended complaint moot.