On January 4, 2023, the New Jersey Appellate Division rendered an interesting, yet unpublished opinion related to the issue of liability for a sidewalk abutting a vacant lot. In Padilla v. An, 2023 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 14 (App. Div. January 4, 2023) Plaintiff, Alejandra Padilla, slipped and fell on the sidewalk abutting a vacant lot in Camden owned by the Defendants. As a result of the fall, Plaintiff allegedly suffered significant bodily injuries resulting in permanent disability and limiting her ability to work.
Plaintiff, in a subsequently filed lawsuit, alleged that the Defendants were negligent for failing to maintain the sidewalk abutting their property, thereby reportedly creating an unreasonable risk to pedestrians. At the conclusion of discovery, the Trial Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the Defendants did not owe a duty to Plaintiff.
Defendants’ motion relied upon the matter of Abraham v. Gupta, 281 N.J. Super. 81 (App. Div. 1995) and argued that pursuant to that precedent they had no duty to maintain the sidewalk in question because it abutted a vacant lot that was not generating any income. In adhering to its long-standing precedent, the Trial Court also found Plaintiff’s argument, that Defendants “could” have generated income by either developing or selling the property to be unpersuasive. While Plaintiff attempted to rely upon both Gray v. Caldwell Wood Prods., Inc., 425 N.J. Super. 496 (App. Div. 2012) and Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, Inc., 87 N.J. 146 (1981), in support of her position, the Trial Court distinguished these oft-cited opinions, noting that Plaintiff’s accident in Gray took place within the bound of a property with a vacant commercial building, which could have generated income. Though Stewart does stand for the proposition that a commercial property owner does have a duty to maintain a sidewalk abutting a commercial property, the Trial Court noted that Abraham found that duty did not apply where the property could not generate income.
On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the Trial Court erroneously relied upon Abraham, and rather, should have applied the standards and reasoning set forth in Stewart. Specifically, Plaintiff argued that Abraham far too narrowly misconstrued the holding in Stewart, which is a long-standing precedent of the New Jersey Supreme Court. Plaintiff stressed that Gray, which specifically involved a sidewalk abutting a vacant building, was applicable given that the property “was capable of generating income by operation of a commercial activity on it,” and Defendants “bought then sold the property for commercial profit.” Gray, 425 N.J. Super. at 498-503.
Further, Plaintiff relied upon a municipal ordinance of the City of Camden which required Defendants to maintain a sidewalk abutting their property and argued that pursuant to the Appellate Division’s opinion in Luchejko v. City of Hoboken, 414 N.J. Super. 302, 319 (App. Div. 2010), a jury should have been given the opportunity to determine whether Defendants had a duty to maintain the sidewalk pursuant to that ordinance.
Irrespective of Plaintiff’s arguments on appeal, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed “substantially for the reasons set forth by the trial judge in his oral decision.” The Appellate Division did make a point to note that:
Abraham remains good law that an owner of a non-income producing vacant lot owes no duty to the public to maintain the lot’s abutting sidewalk in a safe condition. Plaintiff has pointed to no reason why we should deviate from that ruling, which was rendered almost 3 decades ago. Plaintiff’s reliance upon the municipal ordinance stating that landowners are responsible for maintaining their abutting sidewalks is misplaced.
Slip. Op. at 4.
The Appellate Division further explained that in Luchejko, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a private citizen’s breach of an ordinance did not create a right of action to an individual citizen, noting that “the most conspicuous cases of this sort are those that deny liability to private suit for violation of the duty imposed by ordinance upon abutting property owners to maintain sidewalk pavements or to remove ice and snow from the war.” Luchejko, 207 N.J. at 200.
The Court held that in this matter Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Defendants violated the municipal ordinance and that “even if they had, a violation could not provide the basis for liability in the sidewalk slip and fall case.” Slip. Op. at 5. “Simply put, the ordinance does not impose a duty on defendants to protect the plaintiff from a sidewalk’s dangerous condition. See also Robinson v. Vivirito, 217 N.J. 199, 208 (2014) (holding whether a party owes a duty to another party is a question of law for the court to decide, not the factfinder.)” Slip. Op. at 5.
Accordingly, this unpublished opinion is a useful continuing discussion of sidewalk liability in the State of New Jersey. The Court’s decision is specifically useful in outlining the defense of vacant property owners facing claims from pedestrians sustaining injuries on abutting sidewalks of those non-revenue generating properties.
