In the published case of Gottsleben v. Annese, 2025 N.J. Super. LEXIS 52 (App. Div. July 3, 2025), the plaintiff Debra Gottsleben unsuccessfully attempted to expand the principles of public sidewalk liability for commercial properties to a residential property that was unoccupied and undergoing renovations. The plaintiff had slipped and fell on the sidewalk in front of the defendants’ house on the morning of February 18, 2021, due to an accumulation of snow and ice. She sued the defendants for her injuries suffered.
Plaintiff argued that because the property was vacant at the time of the fall and undergoing construction that could enhance the property value, the defendants, as a matter of public policy, should be governed by the same sidewalk law principles as commercial owners. In the alternative, the plaintiff contended that the defendants were nonetheless liable as residential owners for allegedly worsening the sidewalk’s condition due to the poor shoveling and treatment of the sidewalk.
At the trial court level, the defendants filed for a summary judgment. They argued that as residential property owners, their duty was distinct from commercial owners and that New Jersey case law did not impose on them a duty to maintain the safety of a public sidewalk in front of their premises. Further, they argued that there was no proof that they worsened the natural condition of the sidewalk. They argued that the plaintiff’s proofs failed to substantiate her claims of negligent worsening and causation, and that her theory of liability was speculative and inadequate to present to a jury.
The trial court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint. The trial court judge found that defendants’ property could not be fairly treated as commercial under sidewalk liability principles. The trial court judge pointed out that the property was not used for investment nor to generate profit, that defendants always intended to live at the property, and that the ongoing renovations at the time of the plaintiff’s fall did not alter the property’s residential status. Thus, the trial court applied residential sidewalk liability standards to the facts and ruled that defendants were entitled to summary judgment.
This appeal ensued. First, the plaintiff renewed her novel policy argument for treating defendants’ unoccupied property the same as commercial premises under the sidewalk law; second, she argued that there were genuine material issues of facts as to whether defendants worsened the sidewalk’s natural condition through poor shoveling and treatment.
The Appellate Division noted the longstanding New Jersey law that an abutting property owner owed no duty to maintain the street or sidewalk in front of his house or premises. New Jersey courts have declined “to impose civil liability upon homeowners for non-compliance with municipal ordinances that require them to remove accumulations of snow and ice on sidewalks abutting their residences.” Id. at *10.
These principles of sidewalk law have evolved through state case law, leading to the emergence of a “bright-line” between commercial and residential property owners. Under this “bright-line” test, residential property owners in New Jersey are not civilly liable for failing to comply with the municipal ordinances requiring them to clear snow and ice from adjoining sidewalks.
The Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff’s novel argument that the principles of sidewalk liability for commercial properties should be applied to a residential property during a period when the premises are unoccupied and undergoing renovation or construction. The Court noted that the defendants’ intention was to move into the house after the renovations were complete, despite the plaintiff’s argument that the renovations to the property would likely increase its market value and that the defendants might profit if they sold the property in the future. Whether it was profitable or not, the renovation of the property did not change its residential character.
Writing on behalf of the court, Judge Sabatino noted that the law “should not deter New Jersians from renovating their homes out of the concern that vacating the premises to enable such improvements will transform residents into commercial owners for purposes of sidewalk liability.” Id. at *15.
Hence, the Appellate Division stated that it was not its role to create new exceptions to the sidewalk law principles that have been repeatedly enunciated and modified by the Supreme Court. The Court ultimately found that the trial court had properly applied the principles of residential sidewalk law to the facts of this case, rather than the commercial standards advocated by the plaintiff.
There are circumstances under which an abutting residential owner can be liable for an injury caused by the condition of the public sidewalk. However, under New Jersey law, a residential owner is not civilly liable for a hazardous condition of the public sidewalk abutting the owner’s property unless the owner’s conduct made the natural condition of the sidewalk more dangerous.
Here, the Appellate Division found that the plaintiff failed to present proofs that demonstrated how defendants’ conduct had worsened the natural condition of the sidewalk. Thus, the Court affirmed the trial court decision granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint.