In an unpublished decision, the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of a premises liability lawsuit in Pippis v. PDC 16-20 Hudson Place Realty, LLC, et al. The case centers on whether a missing handrail at the bottom of a staircase, coupled with inadequate lighting, could constitute negligence by a property owner and its tenant, contributing to a slip and fall accident.
Nicolette Pippis, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit after she slipped and fell while exiting a building owned by PDC 16-20 Hudson Place Realty, LLC. Pippis had just visited MKG Mundial, LLC, a tenant in the building, when she fell down the stairs and broke her ankle. She argued that her fall was caused by the absence of a handrail extending to the last step and poor lighting conditions.
Under New Jersey law, property owners and tenants have a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition to prevent foreseeable injuries. Pippis argued that the defendants breached this duty by failing to ensure that the staircase had a proper handrail and adequate lighting, as required by current building codes.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, reasoning that Pippis had failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the missing handrail and lighting issues were the proximate cause of her injuries. The court noted that Pippis provided conflicting accounts of where she fell and why, which undermined her claim that the absence of the handrail caused her fall. In addition, the testimony of emergency responders suggested that she fell from a higher step, and not directly where the handrail was missing.
The appellate court disagreed, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that the absence of a handrail near the bottom of the staircase contributed to Pippis’ fall or made it more difficult for her to recover her balance. The court emphasized that proximate cause is typically a question for the jury, not the judge, and should only be decided as a matter of law in “highly extraordinary” situations.
The appellate court also considered expert testimony from an architect, who stated that the handrail stopped 2.5 inches short of the last step and did not comply with current building codes requiring it to extend at least 10.25 inches beyond the bottom step. Although the defendants argued that the building codes did not apply retroactively, the court found that this discrepancy could still be relevant to determining whether the premises were maintained in a reasonably safe condition, as required under negligence law.
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing a jury to decide whether the absence of the handrail and inadequate lighting were substantial contributing factors to Pippis’ injuries. The court’s decision highlights the importance of allowing juries to determine issues of proximate cause in negligence cases and reinforces the duty of property owners to maintain safe premises in compliance with relevant building codes.
Clark & Fox is a firm of experienced lawyers with diverse international and domestic practices that focuses on representing the interests of the insurance industry. Information about all of Clark & Fox’s locations, attorneys, and practice areas is available at http://www.clarkfoxlaw.com
For more information, please contact:
John M. Clark, CEO/President: jclark@
