Plaintiff Margaret Kelly, as Guardian ad litem for Rebecca Kelly, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Rebecca due to an accident at her parent’s condominium complex. Rebecca was a guest of her parents at Back of Bay Condominium Association in Wildwood, when she fell in a trash collection and utility common area exterior to the condominium unit owned by her parents. She fell and suffered serious injuries when she stepped on one of six water meter pits in the area, causing the lid to dislodge and her foot to fall into the pit. The issue in Kelly v. Back of Bay Condominium Association, Inc., 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 291 (App. Div. Feb. 19, 2026) was whether the City of Wildwood defendants could be held liable for her fall due to the condition of the loose pit cover.
Rebecca was a disabled individual with a condition known as “brittle bone disease.” The accident happened when she was carrying a recycling container, attempting to place it in the area of the water meter pits, when she fell. She stepped on one of the water meter pits and, due to the loose lid, it dislodged and her foot fell into the pit. She suffered serious injuries to her left foot and ankle, requiring surgery. She also suffered an injury to her shoulder. She needed surgery on both her left foot and her shoulder due to her fall.
Within a few weeks of her accident, the Senior Meter Reader and Water Inspector for the City of Wildwood inspected the condominium’s utility area to observe where Rebecca fell. He found that the lid had a frozen nut and it would not allow the lid to be locked down by whoever was there last. As a result, he took it away, put it on his truck and put a new lid on it.
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against multiple defendants, including the condominium association, the City of Wildwood, the City of Wildwood Municipal Utility Authority, City of Wildwood Water Utility, and City of Wildwood Sewer Utility. Plaintiff settled out with some defendants or reached voluntary dismissals as to others, but not the Wildwood defendants.
In discovery, it was disclosed that the City had transmitters located on top of the lid and that the water meter pit and equipment in question was last replaced some years before the accident. The testimony from the Water Director for the City was that the water meter pit lids had software or machines that pick up the readings from the meter and transfers the information remotely to staff as they ride up and down the street. Thus, remote meter reading eliminated the need for quarterly on-site inspections of each meter and was both faster and more effective. The meters were read electronically on a quarterly basis.
After the conclusion of discovery, the Wildwood defendants filed for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims. In response to the motion, plaintiff conceded that there was no evidence of actual notice of the alleged dangerous condition posed by the loose lid. However, plaintiff argued that there should be constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. The trial court disagreed and granted summary judgment. This appeal ensued.
The Appellate Division noted that, under the Tort Claims Act, a public entity may only be liable for a personal injury caused by the dangerous condition of its public property. Among other elements that a plaintiff must prove, the plaintiff must prove that the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition for a sufficient time prior to the injury to take measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
Because plaintiff conceded that the Wildwood defendants lacked actual notice of the dangerous condition, the Appellate Division only analyzed whether plaintiff had established constructive notice under the Tort Claims Act. The Court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish that the Wildwood defendants had constructive notice. Plaintiff argued that under the City’s ordinances, the internal policies on lid safety and the replacement of the frozen nut after the accident supported “a reasonable inference that unsafe conditions were regularly observable and existed for a sufficient period of time to establish constructive notice.”
The Appellate Division pointed out that although the Wildwood defendants conceded that there was a loose pit lid and that such condition presented a danger, it is well settled that “the mere existence of an alleged dangerous condition is not constructive notice of it.” There were no proofs showing that Rebecca, her family members, or any of the condominium’s residents had reported or complained about a loose or unsecured meter pit lid prior to the fall. As the trial court noted, there was no information as to how long the lid was loose, whether it was for an hour, a week, a month or a year.
Plaintiff also argued that constructive notice may be imputed to the Wildwood defendants based upon their duty to “inspect, detect and correct missing and loose lids.” The Appellate Division agreed with the trial court judge that this argument was a misinterpretation of the applicable law and would essentially impose strict liability on the part of the Wildwood defendants for any injuries that arose from any sort of dangerous condition that existed on their property.
The Court pointed out that such an interpretation of the Tort Claims Act would be antithetical to its statutory purpose “to provide general immunity for all governmental bodies except in circumstances where the Legislature has specifically provided for a liability.” Thus, the Appellate Division agreed that the existence of a general duty, policy, or training for public utility employees was insufficient to satisfy the notice requirement of the Tort Claims Act under the circumstances presented.
The Appellate Division also addressed whether the City’s conduct was “palpably unreasonable” in failing to detect and correct the loose water pit lid condition. The Court found that because plaintiff did not establish that the Wildwood defendants had constructive notice of the loose water pit lid, its failure to repair it prior to plaintiff’s fall could not be viewed as palpably unreasonable conduct.
Hence, for all of the above reasons, the Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit as to all of the Wildwood defendants.