New Jersey Court Answers The Burning Question: Can I Sue The Owner Of An Abandoned Church If I Slip And Fall On The Sidewalk Outside The Church?

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Slip and fall (pd)
The facts and legal issues in sidewalk slip and fall cases sometimes read like they are pulled from law school final exams. In New Jersey, the baseline legal rule is clear — owners of commercial properties generally have a duty to maintain, in reasonably good condition, the sidewalks abutting their property, while owners of residential properties do not. But does a property owner have a duty to maintain its sidewalks when:

  • the property is both residential and commercial, like a multi-family home where one unit is owner occupied and the others are rented (click here for more on that, but the short answer is that it depends on whether the property is primarily residential or primarily commercial ); or
  • the plaintiff is a tenant and sues the landlord after slipping on a sidewalk outside the rental property (click here for more on that, but usually, yes); or
  • the property is a commercial property, final judgment of foreclosure has been entered in favor of the lender, but no sheriff's sale has been scheduled (click here for more on that, but if the lender can be considered a mortgagee in possession, then yes); or 
  • the property is owned by a condominium or common-interest community (click here for more, but generally, yes if it's a private sidewalk within the condominium, no if it's a public sidewalk abutting the condominium); or
  • the property is residential and the fall is caused by sweetgum spikey seed pods that fell from a tree on the defendant's property (click here, but, no).

And now one more can be added to the list thanks to the Appellate Division's decision is Ellis v. Hilton United Methodist Church, where the question presented was whether "sidewalk liability applies to an owner of a vacant church."

Continue reading “New Jersey Court Answers The Burning Question: Can I Sue The Owner Of An Abandoned Church If I Slip And Fall On The Sidewalk Outside The Church?”

Shortcut Across Bank Parking Lot Leads To A Slip And Fall, But No Liability For The Bank

 by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

SlipandfallI tagged this post in the "banking" category even though its only connection to banking is that it involves a slip-and-fall that occurred in a bank parking lot. But, it offers yet another example of something I have written about before — liability of property owners for accidents that occur on their property.

In Negron v. Warriner's Construction Co., plaintiff slipped on ice and snow in a PNC Bank parking lot that he was using as a short cut to get from his home to a nearby Dollar Store. A morning snow storm dropped approximately 5-6 inches of snow on the area. After the snow stopped, the parking lot was plowed and salted. Plaintiff, who lives across the street from the bank, actually watched the lot get plowed and salted. Several hours after the lot was plowed, a light snowfall covered the lot again with a dusting of snow and, in certain spots, ice underneath.

At around 9 pm, after the second snowfall, plaintiff left his home for the Dollar Store. "Rather than staying on public sidewalks, plaintiff took his normal route by taking a shortcut across the PNC Bank parking lot." This was apparently not uncommon in the neighborhood; residents regularly cut across the lot. There were no fences or gates preventing them from doing so, but there was a "No Trespassing" sign. There was also a sign restricting parking to only bank customers, but this was frequently ignored by neighborhood residents who parked their cars in the lot. 

Continue reading “Shortcut Across Bank Parking Lot Leads To A Slip And Fall, But No Liability For The Bank”

“Knee Deep In The Water Somewhere . . .” Plaintiff Injured by flying coffee cup cannot invoke maritime jurisdiction

 by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Virgin islands (pd)
If you are like me, you have probably wondered: If I were standing on a boat in the Virgin Islands and was injured when someone tossed "an empty insulated coffee cup" at me, could I invoke a federal court's maritime jurisdiction? Well, we now have the answer in the form of the Third Circuit's opinion in Hargus v. Ferocious and Impetuous, LLC.

In Hargus, plaintiff was a passenger on a boat, the "One Love," which was owned by Ferocious and Impetuous, LLC. He rented the boat along with some friends to sail from St. Thomas to various points in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Hargus was standing on the deck of the boat while it was anchored in "knee deep" water, close to shore. Some of the other passengers, who were standing on shore, threw beer cans at Hargus (the opinion does not explain why they did this). Upon seeing this, the captain of the boat, who was standing nearby the passengers who threw the beer cans, threw "an empty insulated plastic coffee cup at Hargus" (the opinion does not explain this either). The coffee cup hit him in the temple. He did not lose consciousness or complain about any injury at the time, and the boat continued on its voyage without further incident.

Two days after the incident, plaintiff sought medical attention after experiencing pain and impaired vision, which he attributed to being hit by the coffee cup. He was diagnosed with a concussion and a mild contusion. (The opinion notes that he had a history of head trauma, having suffered 10-12 prior concussions.) He was not prescribed any medication and was allowed to return to work without restrictions. He did not seek additional treatment until one year later when he went back to the doctor, complaining of headaches, memory loss, mood swings, and neck pains.

Continue reading ““Knee Deep In The Water Somewhere . . .” Plaintiff Injured by flying coffee cup cannot invoke maritime jurisdiction”

Havanese Day! Statements on duped dog buyer’s blog not defamatory

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

HavaneseIn Roberts v. Mintz, defendant bought what he believed was a "healthy, nine-month old, purebred Havanese," but what he got was a two-year old dog that was not a purebred Havanese, and was suffering from various health problems. Defendant complained and plaintiffs offered to refund his money in exchange for the dog. Defendant refused. He wanted the refund, but he wanted to keep the dog because he had already incurred $800 in veterinary fees and because he had become fond of the dog, which he named Moose.

One month after buying Moose, defendant began posting about his experience with plaintiffs on his blog. As you probably guessed, the posts were not positive. Eventually, plaintiffs sued in connection with six specific statements defendant made on his blog, which, among other things, accused plaintiffs of being members of a "notorious ring of South Jersey dog grifters," alleged that plaintiffs had been convicted of animal cruelty, claimed that plaintiffs' lived in a "run down farmhouse with 6 children," and described plaintiffs as "despicable human beings" who ran a "fraudulent puppy mill." Defendants also posted that they had heard from others who were "unwittingly scammed" by plaintiffs. Individuals who claimed to be plaintiffs responded to some of the posts in the comments sections of the blog, calling defendant a "liar" and a "jerk," and claiming that he "suffered from 'rage syndrome,' a behavioral condition that afflicts canines."

In lieu of answering plaintiffs' complaint, defendant moved for summary judgment, seeking to have the complaint dismissed. He also served plaintiffs with a frivolous litigation letter. Plaintiffs cross moved for summary judgment and also sought an injunction preventing defendant from defaming them. The trial court granted defendant's motion. It held that plaintiffs were barred from suing in connection with several of the statements because the one-year statute of limitations had expired. In doing so, it rejected plaintiff's claim that the statute of limitations should have been tolled because defendant had committed a continuous tort. The trial court found that the remaining statements were "opinions, epithets, and hyperbole," and were therefore "not sufficiently factual to be actionable."

Defendant then moved for sanctions, and the trial court granted the motion. Although it did no award defendant all of the sanctions he sought, it did award him $25,000 — assessed against both plaintiffs and their counsel — because plaintiffs filed their complaint without sufficient evidentiary support and because several claims were barred by the statute of limitations. 

Both sides then appealed — plaintiffs seeking to reverse the trial court's decision dismissing their complaint, and defendant seeking to reverse the trial court's decision to award him less in sanctions than what he requested

Continue reading “Havanese Day! Statements on duped dog buyer’s blog not defamatory”

We’ve Come A Long Way From Orange Slices At Halftime! Court Rejects Lawsuit Over Injury During Youth Soccer Match

 by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

 

Yellow card (pd)

If you thought that the yellow card that your child got at his or her soccer match (undeserved though I am sure it was) could never land you in court, you were wrong. In G.C. v. New Jersey Youth Soccer, the parents of a child who received a yellow card were sued by the parents of a child who was injured on the play that resulted in the yellow card. Here is how the Appellate Division described the play:

During the last two minutes of a close soccer match, twelve-year old [plaintiff] was dribbling the ball to take a shot at the goal . . . [Defendant] was trying to catch up with him and take the ball away. There was excitement as the game was close and time was running out. [Plaintiff] made a move for the ball, but he didn't have control of himself as he did and managed to catch the plaintiff after the shot went off.

The play resulted in a knee injury to plaintiff and a yellow card being issued to defendant because, according to the referee, he "contacted [plaintiff] in a manner that didn't confirm with normal level of play."

It also resulted in a lawsuit being filed by plaintiff's parents, on his behalf, against a number of parties, including the other child, several individuals, and various soccer clubs and associations. Plaintiff alleged negligence and reckless and intentional conduct on the part of all defendants. After discovery, each defendant moved for, and was granted, summary judgment. Plaintiff only appealed the grant of summary judgment to the other child.

Continue reading “We’ve Come A Long Way From Orange Slices At Halftime! Court Rejects Lawsuit Over Injury During Youth Soccer Match”