The New Jersey Appellate Division upheld a trial court’s grant of summary judgment to a defendant landowner in a personal injury negligence suit brought against the property owner and tenant for injuries sustained at the leased property. In Gudoski v. Rock Pile Property, LLC, the court addressed a situation where Plaintiff was injured when he went to the leased property to give his friend—the owner of the tenant business—some advice about a crack in the building. Under the lease with the landowner, the tenant was responsible for all maintenance and repairs to the building. While inspecting the property, he fell through a skylight on the roof and sustained injuries. The court found that the landowner could not be liable merely because it owned the building and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the landowner.

In his appeal, Plaintiff alleged that the landowner was negligent because it owed him a duty of care and granting summary judgment to defendant was contrary to New Jersey law and public policy. Looking at the factors in Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, the court recognized that the imposition of a duty of care derives from considerations of public policy and fairness. To determine whether a duty exists, a court must identify and weigh several factors; namely, the relationship of the parties, the nature of the attendant risk, the opportunity and ability to exercise care, and the public interest in the proposed solution.

Analyzing these “Hopkins” factors, the court determined that none of them were met. Plaintiff failed to present any evidence that he and the landowner had any relationship at all and failed to establish facts that it was foreseeable Plaintiff would fall through the skylight. The court also found that Plaintiff failed to establish any notice to the landowner because the owner did not have a presence on site and was not responsible for repairs to the building. As such, Plaintiff did not have any facts to support the conclusion that the landowner had a reasonable opportunity to exercise care. Moreover, the court found that public policy did not support imposing liability on the landowner, since it was the tenant who brought Plaintiff onto the leased property that the tenant controlled. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s case against the landowners was dismissed with prejudice.

Clark & Fox is a firm of experienced lawyers with diverse international 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 on http://www.clarkfoxlaw.com/

For more information, please contact:
John M. Clark, CEO/President: jclark@clarkfoxlaw.com