Full Service Law Firm in Mt. Laurel Township, NJ | Capehart Scatchard

trip and fall

View OTHER BLOGS

Tort Claims Act Protects Borough from Liability for a Pedestrian’s Trip and Fall in a Pothole

Plaintiff Galina Benimovich tripped and fell in a pothole located in the street in front of her daughter’s residence in Montvale’s residential Hickory Hill neighborhood, causing her to fracture her wrist and sue the Borough in Benimovich v. Borough of Montvale, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 23 (App. Div. Jan. 7, 2026). That area of Hickory Hill lacked sidewalks, causing all pedestrians to use the street. Montvale’s records showed that multiple complaints and repairs had been made of similar potholes in Hickory Hill, but those records showed no similar complaints or reports of any roadway defects in 2021, about the time of the plaintiff’s fall, in the location of the plaintiff’s fall. Montvale expressly prioritized larger, more serious potholes they considered an “emergency,” typically three to four inches deep that “can take out a tire or a bicycle or be considered a tripping hazard.” The pothole was an inch-and-a-half deep, about three feet long, and about a foot wide. The plaintiff’s engineer determined a pothole of one-quarter of an inch deep presented a tripping hazard, and that this pothole far exceeded that standard, particularly where pedestrians were anticipated to pass due to the lack of sidewalks.

Montvale filed for summary judgment pursuant to the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:4-1-1, et seq. (TCA), claiming the plaintiff could not establish the pothole in question was a dangerous condition, actual or constructive notice of the pothole in which she fell, or that Montvale’s failure to respond to the danger posed by the pothole was “palpably unreasonable.” The trial court agreed, specifically finding that the plaintiff failed to establish Montvale’s notice of “this particular pothole.” As a result, the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the plaintiff emphasized prior New Jersey TCA case law that established a three-fourths inch depression in a roadway was sufficient to constitute a dangerous condition. Further, the potholes in Hickory Hill were a known, recurring problem, as Montvale’s own records established, giving the Borough constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Finally, the plaintiff stated that Montvale’s failure to fix this pothole was palpably unreasonable due to knowing potholes would occur regularly in Hickory Hill and failing to properly keep records to record and address those dangers. The Appellate Division disagreed on all counts.

In finding the pothole was not a dangerous condition, the Court focused its attention on the Hickory Hill street as a roadway which, though used by pedestrians, was still principally constructed for vehicular traffic, and any defect on it could not be “viewed in a vacuum.” They reasoned that municipalities should not be compelled to retrofit or redesign roadways to accommodate pedestrians simply due to the absence of sidewalks and the resulting foreseeability of pedestrian traffic. Besides, since roadways are reasonably expected to have potholes, just because there are potholes in a roadway does not create an inherently dangerous condition.

Further, the Court underscored the fact that the plaintiff presented no evidence that Montvale knew of this pothole as a result of their lengthy history of complaints and repairs in the area. The Court pointed to the TCA, which requires the plaintiff to prove Montvale had actual or construction notice of the particular pothole in which the plaintiff fell, as shown by testimony or past records of complaints of that condition, not general knowledge of the problem in the area or past repairs.  

Finally, in finding that Montvale’s failure to act did not meet the palpably unreasonable standard, the Court found the record lacked evidence that Montvale’s “actions were so lacking in justification and patently unacceptable under any circumstances.” Despite the plaintiff’s position that the roadway was in regular disrepair, and the Borough knew, the Court found the plaintiff did not show the egregious neglect required under the palpably unreasonable standard, but that Montvale met the standard by prioritizing the use of their limited public resources on potholes they considered more hazardous and in more urgent need of attention than potholes such as this one.

Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Claim Resulting From Trip Over an Outstretched Leg of Kneeling Supermarket Employee

Plaintiff Cvetanka Neceva was selecting an item from a supermarket shelf when she turned and tripped over the partially outstretched leg of a kneeling employee stocking shelves.  She suffered injuries and sued the supermarket, claiming that the outstretched leg of the employee was a dangerous condition.  The issue in Neceva v. Stop and Shop, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2794 (App. Div. Dec. 31, 2025) was whether the outstretched leg of a kneeling supermarket employee could constitute a dangerous or hazardous condition.

The plaintiff had been shopping at a Stop and Shop in Ridgewood and had been selecting an item from a refrigerated aisle.  She was aware of a store employee about one foot from her getting boxes and putting “stuff” in the refrigerator.  She knew that the employee was in a kneeling position, stocking shelves.  After retrieving her item, Plaintiff turned to the right and tripped over the employee’s leg, causing injury.  She does not claim that there was any other condition on the premises that caused her injury.

At the close of discovery, the defendant supermarket filed for a summary judgment.  It argued that the store’s stocking practices were consistent with normal business operations and that the employee’s leg did not create a dangerous or hazardous condition.  The plaintiff had produced a report from a human factors expert who opined that the employee’s leg created a trip hazard and that plaintiff would have had no reason to expect such a hazard in her path of travel.  The defendant also argued that his report constituted an inadmissible net opinion. 

The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant store.  The trial court judge stated that there was nothing about this situation which could be construed to be outside the normal operation of the supermarket.  The court noted that shoppers could be kneeling down, trying to obtain an item on a lower shelf and moving back and forth.  The judge found that employees moving back and forth and moving things onto shelves and off the shelf would appear to be “nothing outside the normal practice of the supermarket.”  Hence, the trial court judge found that no juror could determine that this situation created a dangerous condition. 

This decision was appealed to the Appellate Division. 

The Appellate Division agreed with the trial court “that the employee’s extended leg did not create a dangerous condition subjecting Stop and Shop to liability because it did not create an unreasonable risk of harm and there was no defect in the property itself.”  The Court further noted that “plaintiff’s failure to heed the presence of the employee who was performing a routine supermarket activity – where there was no visual or lighting impairments – does not create a dangerous condition of the premises.”

Additionally, the Appellate Division held that even if there was a risk of harm, it would have been foreseeable and avoidable by a customer exercising reasonable care.  It found that all conditions were “open and obvious” to a reasonable invitee and, thus, no specific warning was required.  Hence, the Appellate Division agreed that the trial court’s decision was correct in concluding that “the injury suffered was not legally attributable to any breach of duty on the part of Stop and Shop or its employees.”

As for the human factors expert’s opinion, the Appellate Division also agreed with the trial court decision that his testimony was not reliable and that the trial court did not make a mistake in barring his opinion.  The Court noted that the expert referenced “no methodology or scientific materials that were subjected to peer review and publication.”  Further, his conclusions were not supported by “identified standards, scientific data, or industry regulations.”

Finally, the Court held that the trial court was also within its discretion to find that the subject matter – an employee kneeling or extending a leg while stocking shelves in a well-lit open supermarket – was not beyond the common knowledge of lay jurors.”  The Appellate Division stated that “[e]mployees kneeling to stock shelves is a routine, expected sight at supermarkets.” Therefore, the Court concluded that the trial court judge also did not make a mistake in determining that expert testimony was neither necessary nor admissible.

Thus, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court decision, dismissing the lawsuit.

Court Finds County Not Liable for Fall on Public Sidewalk Adjacent to County Road

Plaintiff Frances Hice tripped and fell and suffered injuries as a result of an uneven public sidewalk slab on Watchung Avenue in Bloomfield.  The sidewalk abutted a private residence owned by defendants Jose Cruz and Angelica Delacruz.  The sidewalk was adjacent to a road (Watchung Avenue) owned by the County of Essex.  The issue in Hice v. State of New Jersey, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2039 (App. Div. Oct. 28, 2025) was whether the County could be held responsible for a fall which occurred due to an uneven sidewalk adjacent to its roadway.

The uneven sidewalk was caused by tree roots from a tree located on the Cruz-Delacruz property.  Plaintiff initially sued the Township, the State, the County, and the homeowners.  By the time the appeal occurred, the only remaining defendant was Essex County.

The County owned the Watchung Avenue roadway in Bloomfield but, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 27:16-8, it owned the roadway between the curblines, excluding sidewalks.  The sidewalk itself where plaintiff fell was not owned by the County, the homeowners, nor the Township of Bloomfield.  Rather, the sidewalk was considered a right of way and residential property owners would be responsible for maintaining it.

About two years before plaintiff fell, the County began a resurfacing project and was mandated, as part of the project, to install curb ramps compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) at the corners of all roadways.  This project included installation of a ramp near the sidewalk slab where plaintiff tripped.  The scope of the project, however, was limited to replacing the existing pavement markings, sidewalk and curb necessary for the installation of the handicap ramps.

It was undisputed that plaintiff did not fall on the handicap ramp or on the slab next to the handicap ramp.  Rather, plaintiff fell three slabs away from the end of the sidewalk where one of the new ramps was installed.  Plaintiff did concede that this distance was approximately 12 feet from the newly installed ramp.

Plaintiff obtained an expert report from an engineer, Dr. Wayne Nolte.  Dr. Nolte acknowledged that the property adjacent to the sidewalk was owned by the homeowners and that the sidewalk’s maintenance was the responsibility of the abutting property owner.  In his report, however, he stated that the sidewalk between the handicap ramps was required by the ADA standard to have elevation differentials no more than ¼ of an inch.  He concluded that the installation of the handicap ramps exceeded this height differential and, therefore, did not comply with the ADA standard.  But, he did not dispute that the location of the elevation differential, where plaintiff fell, was not on the handicap ramp, nor on the slab next to the ramp.

The defendant homeowners and the County filed for summary judgment at the trial court level.  A summary judgment dismissal was granted by the trial court judge, dismissing out both the homeowners and the County.

While plaintiff appealed both orders for summary judgment, he settled out with the homeowners before the appeal was heard.  Thus, upon appeal, the Appellate Division only dealt with the challenge to the order granting summary judgment to the County. 

The Appellate Division pointed out that a public entity may be held liable for an injury caused by a condition on its public property.  But, liability as to a public entity would only pertain to the property owned or controlled by the public entity. 

Plaintiff argued that the County constructed the ramp in violation of ADA due to the height differential.  Plaintiff argued that the uneven sidewalk caused the plaintiff to trip and fall and be injured.  Further, plaintiff contended that the County created the dangerous condition and, therefore, it had actual or constructive notice of it.

The Appellate Division pointed out the flaws in these assertions.  First, it was undisputed that the plaintiff fell on the sidewalk approximately three sidewalk slabs from the County’s worksite and not next to the handicap ramp.  There was no evidence that the County owned or was responsible for the entire sidewalk.  In fact, the Township Code clearly provided that the abutting property owner was responsible for the installation, repair, or replacement of sidewalks. 

Further, the County did not take control of that portion of the sidewalk when it began construction of the ADA compliant ramp.  The record did not show that the uneven sidewalk where plaintiff fell was caused by the County’s work.  Because there was no evidence showing that the County took control over the entire sidewalk, it had no legal duty to repair the part of the sidewalk where plaintiff fell.

Plaintiff argued that when the County undertook the responsibility of installing the handicap ramp, it had an obligation to ensure that there was nothing greater than ¼ of an inch height differential along the entire sidewalk.  The Appellate Division pointed out that the plaintiff provided no legal support for extending this legal duty to a portion of the sidewalk under the control of the abutting property owner and not the County. 

Hence, the Court declined “to expand a public entity’s duty to inspect and potentially repair sidewalks abutting County roadways not under their control or ownership to ameliorate any potential hazard.”  Because the Appellate Division found no genuine of issue of fact as to whether the County owned or controlled the sidewalk where plaintiff fell, the Court found that the trial court judge had properly granted summary judgment to the County and it affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.

Appellate Division Rules That Injured Plaintiff May Pursue Pothole Claim Against Municipality

On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff Michael Shaw tripped and fell while crossing Kearny Avenue due to a large pothole in the middle of the street. He suffered significant injuries including a broken right hip, chronic lumbar strain, and aggravation of other pre-existing conditions. The issue in Shaw v. Town of Kearny, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 937 (App. Div. June 4, 2025) was whether the Township was deemed to have notice of the alleged roadway defect and, hence, could be responsible for his accident.

Typically, in accidents involving potholes, the public entity responsible for the roadway will not be held liable due to lack of notice of the pothole. Usually, they will not have actual notice of the pothole because they can appear suddenly. Further, it is often hard to prove constructive notice for the same reason. However, the facts in the Shaw case were different. Plaintiff was able to present sufficient facts to establish that the pothole was present for years and was so obvious that Kearny, using due care, should have discovered it. Hence, sufficient facts exist to establish constructive notice.

Plaintiff suffered his injury on a dark night, after parking his car on Kearny Avenue to visit a nearby bakery to make a purchase. The bakery was on the opposite side of the street from where he parked. He went to the bakery and, on the way back, crossed in the middle of the street, not in the crosswalk. He was holding a box of custard cups, not looking down and encountered a large pothole and fell. The pothole was 4 feet in length, 12 inches wide and the deepest section was about 2-3 inches deep.

At the trial court level, the trial judge found that the Township did not have actual or constructive notice of the pothole, granted summary judgment, and dismissed the lawsuit. This appeal ensued.

The Appellate Division, however, disagreed with the trial court. While there was no proof of actual notice, it held that there were facts sufficient to establish constructive notice. It found that the record did include imagery from 2012-2015 showing evidence of cracking and surface depressions. The formation of a pothole appeared on images as of July 2018 and, by October 2020, further images showed continued pavement deterioration, and evidence of large pothole formation.

During this time, Kearny was engaged in a variety of roadway inspection, planning, project finance and repair activities on Kearny Avenue. Other areas near this pothole were patched and repaired in 2018 and 2019. Plaintiff’s expert opined that the accident site continued to deteriorate. Giving all inferences to Plaintiff, the Appellate Division found that there was ample evidence for a jury “to conclude that the Kearny Avenue pothole was a dangerous condition sometime after 2015; the dangerous condition existed for a significant period of time prior to the accident; and the dangerous condition was obvious, so much so that Kearny, using due care, should have discovered it.”

The Court noted that the record showed a continually deteriorating pothole near the middle of the roadway in the Kearny central business district where the Township had multiple opportunities to discover it. Hence, the Appellate Division disagreed with the trial court’s assessment as to the lack of notice and reversed the court’s order for summary judgment.

Municipality Found to Have No Liability for Injury Caused by Trip on Uneven Boards on Boardwalk

Plaintiff Jessica Feeney tripped and fell while walking on the boardwalk in the City of Atlantic City.  She sued the City claiming that she tripped on uneven boards and that the City was negligent in causing the dangerous condition and that it failed to timely repair the condition.  The issue in Feeney v. City of Atlantic City, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 421 (App. Div. Mar. 19, 2025) was whether the City could be liable for either causing or failing to repair the boardwalk before the plaintiffs’ accident.

This accident occurred on August 30, 2019, when plaintiff was walking on the boardwalk in the City near the Showboat Hotel.  Plaintiff testified that there was a raised board and her right foot rolled on the uneven board and her leg buckled.   She tripped, fell and injured herself.  She denied noticing the uneven board before she fell.  After the accident, her husband went back and took photos which showed that there was one board that was lower than the adjacent board with a displacement of approximately 1 inch. 

She and her husband sued the City, claiming that the City was negligent in causing the condition on the boardwalk and in failing to timely repair the uneven board.  She retained a liability expert, Arthur Chew, who reviewed the photographs and opined that there was a hazardous condition.  He also opined that the City’s police vehicles and public works vehicles that ride on the boardwalk placed high stresses in the boardwalk and they may cause the boards to become uneven. 

The expert relied upon testimony from City employees who explained that the boards could become uneven for numerous reasons which included weather, shifting of the boardwalk foundation, sand being pushed up against the underside of the boardwalk and vehicles going across the boardwalk.  Displacements of more than a ¼ of an inch between boards were something that needed to be looked at.  The City also admitted that any vehicle on the boardwalk does damage.

The City filed for summary judgment, arguing that it was shielded from liability under the Tort Claims Act.  It asserted that it had no actual or constructive notice of the uneven boards where plaintiff fell.  It also argued that its conduct in inspecting the boardwalk, which was approximately 4½ miles long, was not palpably unreasonable.  Finally, it contended that the uneven boards or raised boards did not constitute a dangerous condition as defined by the Act.

The trial court granted the summary judgment and dismissed the case.  It found that the uneven condition of the boards did constitute a dangerous condition.  However, there was no evidence that the City caused the dangerous condition.  It found plaintiffs’ liability expert’s opinion to be speculative because there were no facts to support that the City had caused the boards to become uneven. Knowing that vehicles might cause the boardwalk to become uneven in certain places did not establish that the boards where plaintiff tripped became uneven because a vehicle drove on those boards.  Further, there were no facts to establish when the boards became uneven and, thus, a jury could not conclude that the City failed to repair the dangerous condition in a reasonable period of time. 

Finally, the trial court also concluded that the City had not acted palpably unreasonably.  The trial court pointed out that the City had an inspector who regularly inspected the boardwalk and plaintiff had presented no evidence that the City should have discovered the uneven boards before plaintiffs’ accident. 

This summary judgment dismissal was appealed to the Appellate Division.  Plaintiff argued that a trial court should not have granted summary judgment because there were material disputed facts concerning whether the City created the dangerous condition that caused her fall.  Further they argued that their expert’s opinions were not net opinions and were supported by the factual evidence.  However, the Appellate Division rejected these arguments and affirmed the trial court decision.

The Court noted that the City, as a public entity, was only liable for negligence as permitted under the Tort Claims Act.  To establish liability, the Appellate Division noted that the plaintiff must prove as follows:

1.         A dangerous condition existed on the property at the time of the injury.

2.         The dangerous condition proximally caused the injury.

3.         The dangerous condition caused a foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred.

4.         The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient time prior to the injury to correct the dangerous condition.

5.         The action or inaction taken by the public entity to protect against the dangerous condition was palpably unreasonable.

Here, the Appellate Division noted that there was no evidence that the City had actual knowledge of the uneven boards.  Instead, the plaintiffs’ argument was that the City knew that vehicles drove on the boardwalk, that vehicles might cause the boards to become uneven, and that the City’s vehicles going across the boardwalk likely created the uneven boards.  However, the Court found that there was no evidence from which a jury could find that the City had actual or constructive notice of this condition.  It pointed out that “[k]nowing that a boardwalk stretching more than 4 miles can be damaged on various times and various causes, including vehicles driving on or across the boardwalk, does not constitute actual or constructive knowledge of this specific dangerous condition that caused [plaintiff] to fall.”

As for plaintiffs’ theory that the City should have inspected and found the uneven boards, the Court pointed out that the problem with this theory is that plaintiffs have no evidence as to how long the boards were uneven.  Plaintiffs’ liability expert was never able to identify when the boards became uneven.  Rather, he merely speculated that the City should have discovered the uneven boards if they conduct a regular inspection.  The Court found that without knowing when the boards became uneven, a jury would have no basis to find that the City had “a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”

As for the last prong as to whether the City acted palpably unreasonable, the plaintiffs’ best argument was that the City should have discovered the uneven inspections where plaintiff fell by conducting more regular inspections.  However, the City did inspect for dangerous conditions on the boardwalk and there was no evidence from which a jury could find that the City’s failure to conduct more inspections was palpably unreasonable.

The Appellate Division also rejected the expert’s opinion that the City’s vehicles created the damage to the boards.  The Court pointed out that there were no facts to support this opinion.

Thus, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court’s decision and affirmed the summary judgment dismissal in favor of the City of Atlantic City.

Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Claim Caused by Fall in Pothole Located in Crosswalk

Plaintiff Nelly Reis a/k/a Nelly Gonclaves and her husband filed a lawsuit against the City of Newark for her personal injuries.  She alleged that she tripped and fell in a pothole, a couple of feet outside of a crosswalk, while she was crossing an intersection in the City of Newark.  The issue in Reis v. City of Newark, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3053 (App. Div. Dec. 17, 2024) was whether plaintiff was able to establish that Newark had constructive notice of the pothole and, hence, could be liable for the injuries she suffered due to her fall.

On the date of the accident, Nelly parked her car and walked to her office located on Rome Street.  She parked on the corner of Rome Street and Niagara Street because she could not park on Niagara Street due to street cleaning.  While walking to work, she crossed the intersection of Rome and Niagara outside of the crosswalk.  She tripped and fell in a pothole that was a couple feet outside of the crosswalk and about 100 feet from her office.  As a result of her fall, she suffered injuries.

She testified in her deposition that while she was familiar with the neighborhood, she did not recall seeing the pothole on Rome Street before she fell.  Nelly filed a tort claim notice against the City of Newark and subsequently filed this lawsuit.  She claimed that the large pothole in the roadway created a dangerous condition.

After discovery concluded, Newark filed a motion for summary judgment.  It argued that it lacked actual notice of the pothole before the accident and only became aware of the pothole after it received Nelly’s tort claim notice.  After receiving notice, the City sent a crew to repair it. 

Plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, submitted her own deposition testimony and Affidavits from three coworkers who stated that they were familiar with this pothole and it had existed for a long period of time, many months, prior to her accident.  She also submitted Google Earth images of this intersection which showed the pothole existing before the accident.      

Nevertheless, the motion judge granted Newark’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed the decision, arguing that Newark had constructive notice of the pothole and that her complaint should not have been dismissed.

This personal injury claim is governed by the Tort Claims Act, under which plaintiff must prove that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the accident, that it proximately caused the injury, the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred and that either a negligent or wrongful act or omission of the public employee created or knew about the dangerous condition or that it had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.  (N.J.S.A. 59:4-2) Hence, the critical inquiry in this case was whether Newark had constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the pothole. 

The plaintiff argued that there were genuine material facts in dispute and that she should be entitled to present her case to a jury.  The Appellate Division noted that under the Tort Claims Act, a public entity is liable for potholes or depression in the roadway “only when the public entity is on actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition; and the public entity’s failure to protect against the roadway defect is palpably unreasonable.”  A public entity is only deemed to have constructive notice of the dangerous condition when the plaintiff is able to establish “that the condition had existed for such a period of time and was of such an obvious nature that the public entity, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the condition and its dangerous character.”

Plaintiff argued that she did provide evidence sufficient to prove the existence of the pothole before the accident.  However, the Appellate Division found that there was no evidence in the record that Newark had any notice of the pothole at the time of her fall.  Further, it found that the evidence she submitted fell “short of the competent evidence necessary to show Newark had constructive notice of the pothole.”

The Court noted that simply the admission of Google Earth photographs was not sufficient.  Plaintiff failed to offer any testimony as to whether the images were satellite or real images or when the images were captured and if any of the images were altered.

Thus, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court decision.  It found no reason to reverse the judge’s conclusion because plaintiff had failed to meet her burden and establish that Newark had or should have had constructive notice of the pothole on Rome Street.  Thus, the summary judgment decision was affirmed.

New Jersey Supreme Court Imposes Duty Upon Owner of Vacant Commercial Lot to Maintain the Public Sidewalk Abutting the Property

Plaintiff Alejandra Padilla allegedly tripped, fell, and suffered injuries on the sidewalk that abutted the vacant commercial lot in Camden owned by the defendants Young Il An and Myo Soon An.  This property had been purchased more than 25 years previously but no building was ever constructed.  The issue in Padilla v. Il An, 2024 N.J. LEXIS 575 (June 13, 2024) before the Supreme Court was whether the owner of a vacant commercial lot had a common law duty to maintain the abutting public sidewalk in reasonably good condition.

On September 11, 2019, plaintiff allegedly was injured while walking on the public sidewalk abutting the vacant commercial lot located on Westfield Avenue in Camden, New Jersey that was owned by the defendants.  According to her deposition, plaintiff suffered several injuries from the fall, including a broken foot and injured arm, and underwent surgery for her injuries.  She claims to suffer continuing symptoms, including migraines, pain, and memory loss.

The lot abutting this public sidewalk had been owned by the defendants 27 years before plaintiff’s fall.  According to defendant Young Il An, they bought the lot intending to construct a building there but due to economic conditions, they gave up that plan.  They also did not purchase liability insurance to cover the lot because, according to the defendant, insurance companies did not really want to insure it.  After the fall, the defendants did have the sidewalk abutting the subject lot repaired. 

Plaintiff sued defendants based upon their alleged negligence in failing to reasonably maintain the sidewalk abutting the subject lot.  At the trial court level, the defendants were successful in obtaining a summary judgment dismissal.  The trial court held that the defendants did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff, relying on the Appellate Division’s decision in Abraham v. Gupta.  In the Abraham case, the Appellate Division held that “the liability imposed on commercial property owners to reasonably maintain abutting sidewalks does not apply to sidewalks abutting vacant lots.”  The trial court’s rationale was that the defendants did not have a duty to maintain the sidewalk because it abutted a vacant lot that was not generating any income.

This summary judgment dismissal in the Padilla case was appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment.  The Appellate Division ruled that Abraham remained good law as applied to the subject lot and declined to impose any duty upon the defendant vacant lot property owner to maintain the abutting sidewalk in a safe condition.

Plaintiff filed a petition for certification on the issue of whether owners of vacant commercial lots owe a duty of care to pedestrians to reasonably maintain the sidewalks abutting those lots.  The New Jersey Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s petition, bringing this issue before the Supreme Court.

Plaintiff urged the Supreme Court to reverse the Appellate Division’s decision, contending that the Abraham case should be reversed.  Plaintiff contended that the Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, Inc. case which imposed a duty of care upon commercial properties, as opposed to residential properties, to maintain the abutting public sidewalk, did not distinguish among types of commercial properties or consider whether those properties had active businesses on them.  Plaintiff further argued that imposing a duty of care would be fair because the subject lot was capable of generating income. 

The Supreme Court noted that in the four decades since the Stewart case, the New Jersey courts “have adhered to the rule imposing liability on commercial landowners.”  The issue in this case was whether that liability should be extended to commercial landowners of vacant lots.  The Court adopted a bright-line test, concluding that a duty should be imposed on owners of vacant commercial lots to maintain the abutting sidewalks in reasonably good condition.

The Court noted that there would be “something profoundly unfair about commercial property owners purchasing vacant lots and having no responsibility whatsoever from maintaining the area where the general public traverses.”   Hence, the Court ruled that all commercial landowners, including owners of vacant commercial lots “must maintain the public sidewalks abutting their property in reasonably good condition and can be held liable to pedestrians injured as a result of their negligent failure to do so.”

The Court explained that once “an individual or an entity purchases a lot in a commercially zoned area, meaning the only use to which that land can be put as commercial, the purchaser has begun a commercial endeavor and intends to make money.”  The Supreme Court rejected any type of profitability test to determine whether a duty should be imposed upon a commercial landowner, finding that profitability would be a difficult task to determine.  Thus, it found that a bright-line rule that commercial property owners owe a duty “is the most workable rule to protect the general public and ensure consistency in our courts.” 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, which had affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendant property owners and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Hotel Found Not to Be Liable for an Injury Caused by Trip Over Corner of Bed Frame

Plaintiff Cheryl King was a guest at the defendant Harrah’s Atlantic City Hotel.  While walking through her hotel room, she hit her leg on the corner of the bed frame which caused her to trip and hit her head on the wall.  The issue in King v. Harrah’s Atlantic City Operating Co., LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70806 (D.N.J. Apr. 24, 2023) was whether the defendant hotel breached any duty owed to plaintiff that caused her injury.

Plaintiff claimed that the bed frame was improperly exposed and, thus, created a dangerous tripping hazard.  However, she had slept in the room at least once and had not reported any issues with the bed or the bed frame until after she fell.  She claimed that the defendant hotel was liable for her injuries and negligence because it knew of the alleged defect in the bed frame prior to her stay but had never sought to correct it.

It was not disputed that the defendant hotel owed plaintiff a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Rather, the issue was whether plaintiff could adequately demonstrate that defendant breached its duty.

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a dismissal.  It claimed that it was not liable for her alleged trip and fall incident.

To establish a breach of duty care, plaintiff must prove “that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition that caused the accident.”  The dangerous condition of the property must involve an unreasonable risk of harm.  The District Court noted that not every property condition on which persons can hurt themselves is unreasonably dangerous or hazardous.

Based upon the facts of this case, the plaintiff did not claim that the bed frame was broken or damaged, that it blocked her path as she walked around her hotel room, or that the bed frame ever moved from the original position it had presumably always occupied prior to her fall.  Her claim was that it was “defective” because one particular corner extended out beyond the mattress.

The District Court noted the following: “while it is clear that plaintiff tripped over a bed frame, the Court fails to comprehend based on the record before it how the bed frame was defective or otherwise posed an reasonable risk of harm.”  The Court found that the plaintiff had not submitted any evidence suggesting that the danger of this particular bed frame differed from the ordinary risks inherent in any other bed frame.  Further, she offered no expert testimony demonstrating that the bed frame created a dangerous condition or that it was contrary to industry standards.  The Court found that “plaintiff has failed to fully articulate any real defect at all, much less prove the existence of a dangerous one.”

Further, the Court noted that any danger that the bed frame could have posed was “undoubtedly neutralized by its clear and obvious visibility in the room.”    The simple fact that plaintiff tripped and fell does not make the bed frame unreasonably dangerous or hazardous as a matter of law.  Further, the Court found that it did not diminish the bed frame’s plain visibility, the appropriateness of its placement, or lessen the expectation that plaintiff should have taken reasonable care as she walked to avoid this particular injury. 

Based upon the facts, the District Court found that no reasonable jury could find that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the bed frame as a dangerous condition.  Any reasonable prudent person would have observed, in light of the dimensions of the bed, its presence in his or her lane of travel.  Because plaintiff could not prove that defendant breached its duty of care, the District Court found that her negligence claim must fail as a matter of law.  Hence, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted.

Homeowner Did Not Have Insurance Coverage for Accident of Person Who Lived With Insured

Plaintiff Mary Ann Iaeck lived with Patricia Barnaba in a condominium owned by Defendant Barnaba.  Plaintiff fell down a flight of stairs in the condominium and sued Barnaba, claiming that Barnaba’s negligence caused her fall.  Barnaba had a homeowner’s insurance policy with personal liability coverage with Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”).  The issue in Iaeck v. Barnaba, 2023 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1768 (App. Div. Oct. 16, 2023) was whether the Federal insurance policy provided coverage for this personal injury claim or whether the exclusion for liability to persons who live with the policyholder was triggered.

Plaintiff had lived with Barnaba in the condominium since 2008.  She had a verbal lease with Barnaba and paid Barnaba rent.  However, it was undisputed that they shared parts of the condominium, including the kitchen, the garage, the mailbox and the space where the washing machine and dryer were located.  Plaintiff used the bedroom and bathroom on the fourth floor of the condominium.

After living with Barnaba for about 11 years, plaintiff fell down the stairway in the condominium.  She claimed that she tripped because the lights were out, the handrail was loose and Barnaba had placed boxes and other things on the steps.

As a result of her fall, plaintiff suffered a fracture of her left leg and compartment syndrome. Plaintiff was required to have multiple surgeries, which left her with permanent scarring.

At the time of the accident, Barnaba had a homeowner’s insurance policy with Federal.  The policy did cover Barnaba’s home and provided her with personal liability coverage which provided coverage for damages Barnaba was legally obligated to pay for personal injuries.

However, the policy contained numerous exclusions.  The pertinent one was entitled “Covered person’s or dependent’s personal injury.”  According to that exclusion, Federal stated that it would not cover damages for personal injuries for any covered person or their dependents where the ultimate beneficiary is the offending party or defendant.  Further, the exclusion stated that Federal would not cover any damages for personal injury “for which you or a family member can be held legally liable in any way, to a spouse, a family member, a person who lives with you, or a person named in the Coverage Summary.”

After the plaintiff’s fall, counsel for plaintiff sent Federal a letter advising of the fall and asking Federal to open a bodily injury claim under its policy.  Thereafter, Federal denied any obligation to provide Barnaba with coverage for plaintiff’s injuries.  Federal advised that Barnaba’s personal liability coverage was excluded under the policy’s “Covered person’s or dependent’s personal injury exclusion.”

Thereafter, plaintiff sued Barnaba with plaintiff claiming that Barnaba was negligent in causing her injuries.  Thereafter, plaintiff amended her complaint to assert a direct claim against Federal and sought a declaratory judgment that the policy issued by Federal to Barnaba provided coverage for plaintiff’s injuries.  She also requested a default against Barnaba.  Sometime later the trial court conducted a proof hearing concerning plaintiff’s injuries, for which Barnaba did not appear.  A judgment in the amount of $766,330 was entered in favor of plaintiff against Barnaba.

Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed between Federal and plaintiff as to the coverage issue.  The trial court granted summary judgment to Federal and declared that Federal did not have any indemnity or defense obligations as to plaintiff’s personal injury claims against Barnaba and dismissed all claims against Federal with prejudice.  That order was appealed to the Appellate Division.

The issue upon appeal was whether the “Covered person’s or dependent’s personal injury” exclusion applied to plaintiff’s personal injury claims because plaintiff lived with Barnaba.  The Appellate Division noted the well settled concepts that coverage provisions are to be read broadly and exclusions are to be read narrowly with any potential ambiguities being resolved in favor of the insured. Further, the policy is to be read in a manner that fulfills the insured’s reasonable expectations.  However, if the plain language of the policy is unambiguous, the court is not to engage in a strained construction to support the imposition of liability or write a better policy for the insured than the one purchased.

In applying these principles, the Appellate Division found that the “Covered person’s or dependent’s personal injury” exclusion did apply.  The Appellate Division explained that Barnaba’s liability to plaintiff for her personal injuries was excluded under the policy because plaintiff did live with Barnaba at the time of the accident.  It found that the language was “plain and unambiguous.”  The Court found that the exclusion applied to personal injury suffered by plaintiff because plaintiff was living with Barnaba at the time of the accident.  It found no ambiguity in this exclusion, even if read narrowly, and also found that it was not contrary to public policy because “it is reasonable for an insurer to exclude coverage for liability for personal injuries to people who live with the covered person.”

One of the arguments made by plaintiff upon appeal was that the exclusion should be read to apply only to individuals who are part of the covered person’s household or who have a romantic or familial relationship with the covered person.  The Appellate Division rejected that argument as inconsistent with the plain language of the exclusion.  It noted that the exclusion did not use the term “household” members.  Rather, it stated that there was no liability coverage for personal injuries to “a person who lives with” the covered person.

Further, the Appellate Division found that if the exclusion was meant only to apply to household members or family members, there would be no need to list “a spouse, a family member or a person who lives with you.”  By separately listing “a person who lives with you,” the Court found that “Federal was clearly stating that the exclusion applied to people who are not in a familial relationship.”  There was nothing in the terms “a person who lives with you” that require that there be a romantic relationship between that person and the covered person.

The Court rejected all of the plaintiff’s other arguments and upheld the trial court’s decision. Thus, the summary judgment entered in favor of the Federal Insurance Company dismissing the case against it was affirmed. 

Township Found to Have No Liability for Injury Caused by Trip Over Pothole in Shoulder of Road

Plaintiff Patrice Powers-Feigel was walking on the shoulder of Nosenzo Pond Road in West Milford when she slipped on gravel and her foot got caught on the edge of a pothole or uneven pavement.  She tripped and fell into the street, resulting in serious injuries.  The issue in Powers-Feigel v. Township of West Milford, 2023 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 495 (App. Div. Apr. 3, 2023), was whether the Township could be responsible for a pedestrian accident caused by a trip in a pothole located in the shoulder of a road.

Prior to her fall, plaintiff had walked in the same area about 25 times before without incident.  On that date, she had to walk around the base ring of a construction barrel on the shoulder before she fell.  The parking lot across the street from where she fell was under construction.  There was no walkway or sidewalk in the area where she was walking.

After her fall, plaintiff retained an engineering expert who opined that the crack in which she caught her foot measured 2½ inches wide by 1¼ deep.  He stated that the pavement surface was uneven and lacked a physical border to the pavement at the edge of the roadway, causing a tripping hazard.  He relied upon standards pertaining to walkways and sidewalks in concluding the shoulder was a dangerous condition.  He did not cite to any standards for roadway shoulder lanes in his report.

Plaintiff sued the Township of West Milford claiming that there was a dangerous condition that caused her accident.  During discovery, the supervisor of the Department of Public Works testified that the roadway was inspected weekly and cracks over ½ inch would require repair.  Plaintiff contended that this area of the shoulder could be construed as a bicycle path and further because three schools were located nearby, plaintiff asserted that recreational activity was not only the shoulder lane’s foreseeable use but it’s “intended and encouraged” use.

The defendant moved for a summary judgment dismissal, finding that the defendant was not liable to plaintiff under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act.  The court noted that the plaintiff “failed to establish the following necessary dangerous condition elements: (1) that the shoulder lane created a substantial risk of injury when it was used with due care in a reasonably foreseeable manner; and (2) that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the shoulder’s condition.”

With regard to plaintiff’s expert, the court rejected his opinion that the shoulder of a rural roadway must comply with the standards for walkways and sidewalks.  Further, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that a public entity must maintain shoulder lanes used by pedestrians to the same degree that they would maintain a sidewalk.  The court found no evidence that demonstrated the shoulder on this road was considered a “pedestrian walkway” by defendant.  The court concluded that the shoulder lane was not dedicated or intended for pedestrian traffic and no dangerous condition existed on the roadway.  This appeal followed that decision.

Upon appeal, the plaintiffs advanced the same argument that the shoulder’s condition created a substantial risk of injury and was a dangerous condition.  Further, that the defendant Township had actual or constructive knowledge of the shoulder’s condition.

The Appellate Division noted the well settled principle of the Tort Claims Act is that “immunity from tort liability is the general rule and liability is the exception.”  Further, that “the mere happening of an accident on public property is insufficient to impose liability upon a public entity.”

More specifically, the Court noted that for the condition to be considered a “dangerous condition,” the “property that creates a substantial risk of injury when such property is used with due care in the manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.”  It must be considered that the condition of the property cannot be minor and it must be considered together with the anticipated use of the property.

Case law has defined the term “used with due care” to mean an “objectively reasonable” use. 

Based upon the facts and the legal principles in this case, the Appellate Division found that the trial court properly granted summary judgment and affirmed that decision.  The Appellate Division reasoned that cracks in a highway may constitute a dangerous condition when the highway’s roadway or shoulder are used in a foreseeable manner.  However, the term “roadway” constitutes the portion of a highway ordinarily used for a vehicular travel and the “shoulder” is “that portion of the highway, exclusive of and bordering the roadway, designed for emergency use but not ordinarily to be used for vehicular travel.”

The Appellate Division concluded that based upon the facts of this case, “that no reasonable jury could find the pothole or long depression cracks or divots gave rise to a substantial risk of injury” to plaintiff.  Essentially, the Court found that the use of a shoulder was not intended for an exercising pedestrian.

Further, the plaintiff had failed to present any evidence that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition of the shoulder prior to her fall.  Plaintiff admitted to walking there 25 times before without noticing anything dangerous or hazardous about the shoulder surface.  The roadway was inspected weekly for defects.  There was no proof of similar accidents in the vicinity.  The Appellate Division was satisfied that the trial court correctly found that defendant did not have actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition that caused plaintiff’s fall and the Township’s inspection scheme was not “palpably unreasonable.”

Thus, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment and affirmed that decision, dismissing the lawsuit. 

Capehart Blogs

Firm News
Capehart Scatchard Celebrates 150th Anniversary
NJ School Law
Appellate Division Upholds Finding of HIB for Comments Made in Snapchat Group Chat
Insurance
Broadly-Read Insurance Policy Exclusion Allows Insurer to Deny Coverage for Pharma Company Due to Chairman’s Alleged Self-Dealing Scheme by New Jersey Supreme Court

Appellate Division Upholds Finding of HIB for Comments Made in Snapchat Group Chat

Broadly-Read Insurance Policy Exclusion Allows Insurer to Deny Coverage for Pharma Company Due to Chairman’s Alleged Self-Dealing Scheme by New Jersey Supreme Court

Parents’ Constitutional Rights to Access School Property: Court Dismisses Due Process and First Amendment Claims

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Categories

Tags
Alternative Energy Alternative Energy - Solar Alternative Energy - Wind Appellate Division automobile accident automobile insurance Burlington County Bar Association Cannabis Law Charity constructive notice coverage data privacy data security dismissal Diversity & Inclusion Committee duty of care employees employers Employment Law evidence insurance Liability Litigation Litigation Quarterly Lorman Millennium Seminars NBI negligence New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act New York Law NJ Law notice Open Public Records Act Pennsylvania Law personal injury Public Entity Newsletter Real Estate and Land Use school law slip and fall statute of limitations summary judgment Tort Claims Act trip and fall Workers' Compensation Workers' Compensation Newsletter