Plaintiff Suzanne Pagonis tripped and fell while walking across a grassy field at the Crestwood Lake Club, which was a recreational lake swimming complex owned by defendant Borough of Allendale and encompassed a municipal park, Crestwood Park. Her daughter had participated earlier in the day in a softball tournament at the Club’s facilities. Plaintiff fell while crossing a grassy field on the way back to her car to retrieve lunch for her children. The issue in Pagonis v. Borough of Allendale, 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 462 (App. Div. March 22, 2021) was whether the Borough was immune from liability for such accident under Tort Claim Act defenses.
Plaintiff and the other tournament families were advised that they could not use the beach and facilities reserved for members that were closest to the main entrance parking lot. Rather, they had to use only the “west beach,” which was roughly across the lake from the member’s beach and the Club’s concession stand and access that beach through another entrance. Plaintiff arrived with her children and ultimately ended up parking in a grassy area near the north end of the lake where other cars were parked. With her family, she walked across a grassy field to the west beach. Sometime later, she arrived at the concession stand to purchase some food. Because of the long line, she decided to return to her car, retrieve lunch for her children and go back to the west beach. As she crossed the grassy field and was about three-quarters of the way to the west beach, she tripped and fell.
Plaintiff claims that her right foot dropped into a deep hole, causing her fall and resulting injuries. She alleged that the deep hole was a dangerous condition on public property and that the Borough negligently failed to maintain, supervise, control, and repair the open fields around the lake. She also alleged that Allendale was responsible for controlling the parking lots and directing pedestrian traffic at the Club. She claimed that the Borough failed to exercise reasonable care because it directed her to an area without safe access to the west beach and failed to supervise access to the west beach.
Allendale filed a summary judgment motion based upon immunities under the Tort Claims Act and the Landowner’s Liability Act. The motion judge granted summary judgment to Allendale finding that the motion record failed to demonstrate that the hole that allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall or their lack of a pathway to the beach was a dangerous condition on public property. The judge also rejected plaintiff’s claim that Allendale’s employees were negligent in supervising access to the west beach. Further, the judge found that the Borough also had immunity under the Landowner’s Liability Act.
This appeal ensued and plaintiff argued that the summary judgment order should be reversed as to the Borough.
The Appellate Division noted that, under the Tort Claims Act, a public entity is immune from tort liability unless there is a specific statutory provision that makes it answerable for a negligent act or omission. For a public entity to be found liable for a condition of property, “a plaintiff must establish the existence of a dangerous condition, that the condition proximately caused the injury, that it created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, that either the dangerous condition was caused by a negligent employee or the entity knew about the condition, and that the entity’s conduct was palpably unreasonable.” (N.J.S.A. 59:4-2).
Here, the police officer who responded to the plaintiff’s fall looked around and did not see any hole that the plaintiff might have stepped in and fallen. One of the responding police officers took photographs, which did not show anything other than the general area of plaintiff’s fall. Allendale’s Director of Operations testified in a deposition that the grassy areas was mowed by DPW workers two times per week in the summer. He walked the grassy area once per week but was unaware of any complaints or prior accidents in the area. Further, although plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories claim she fell in a “deep hole,” her fiancé described it as one caused by a vehicle’s tire.
The Appellate Division noted that, even assuming arguendo, the tire impression, undescribed as to its depth could be considered a dangerous condition, plaintiff was nonetheless required to prove the condition was caused by a public employee’s negligence or that Allendale had actual or constructive notice of the condition. Although plaintiff contended that the hole was caused by a depression made by DPW vehicles or other vehicles operated by Allendale, the only support for this proposition was a photograph of the scene on the day of plaintiff’s fall. This photograph portrayed a field of grass but did not demonstrate deep depressions in the earth caused by vehicles’ tires.
Additionally, the Court noted that there was no evidence demonstrating that Allendale was on actual notice of a dangerous declivity through prior observations or complaints. Finally, the Court found that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that Allendale should have been charged with constructive notice of a dangerous condition.
Plaintiff’s alternative argument that Allendale negligently permitted its employees to direct attendees to an area that required them to walk on the grassy field after parking their cars also failed. The Court held that “if there was no liability for the condition of the field, directing attendees to that area could not be an independent negligent act by a public employee.”
Thus, the Appellate Division upheld the order granting summary judgment to the Borough of Allendale. The Court found that it did not need to consider whether the immunity provided under the Landowner’s Liability Act applied because it found that the motion judge properly granted Allendale’s summary judgment under the provisions of the Tort Claim Act’s requirements of proof under N.J.S.A. 59:4-2 (liability for dangerous condition on public property).
Betsy G. Ramos, Esq. is a member of the firm’s Executive Committee and Co-Chair of the Litigation Group. She is an experienced litigator with over 30 years’ experience handling diverse matters. Her practice areas include tort defense, insurance coverage, Tort Claims Act and civil rights defense, business litigation, employment litigation, construction litigation, estate litigation and general litigation.