Sussman v. Mermer
Court | Superior Court of New Jersey |
Citation | 373 N.J. Super. 501,862 A.2d 572 |
Parties | Stanley J. SUSSMAN and Marcy B. Sussman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert Wayne MERMER and Mary Mermer, Defendants-Respondents. |
Decision Date | 21 December 2004 |
862 A.2d 572
373 N.J. Super. 501
v.
Robert Wayne MERMER and Mary Mermer, Defendants-Respondents
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Telephonically Argued November 18, 2004.
Decided December 21, 2004.
Donald Caruthers, III, Marlton, argued the cause for respondents (Styliades, Jackson and Dimeo, attorneys; Mr. Caruthers, on the brief).
Before Judges SKILLMAN, PARRILLO and GRALL.1
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARRILLO, J.A.D.
Plaintiff, Stanley J. Sussman, appeals from a summary judgment dismissing his personal injury negligence complaint against defendants, Robert and Mary Mermer.2 We reverse and remand, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant-homeowners' conduct breached the standard of care.
Viewing the evidence most favorably to plaintiff, R. 4:46-2(c); Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540, 666 A.2d 146 (1995), the facts are as follows. On the evening of June 21, 2000, defendants hosted a graduation party for their son at their Cherry Hill home. They had invited plaintiff, who lived around the corner, close to the back of their home. Plaintiff arrived at the party at about 8:00 p.m., entering through the back door, and stayed for two or three hours. Upon leaving the party, plaintiff, unaccompanied, exited via the front door, descending one step onto an exterior porch and then down another step leading to a cement pathway. However, as he descended the second step, plaintiff slipped and fell to the ground, fracturing his right elbow.
Plaintiff's expert, a professional engineer, inspected the area of the fall. He concluded that the porch-walkway setup was a hazardous condition and in violation of building codes, citing inadequate lighting, dimensionally non-uniform steps, and the lack of a railing or handrail. Despite the expert's report, which was the subject of an unsuccessful defense motion in limine to suppress, the motion judge ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, reasoning:
Plaintiff's expert indicates in his report the defendants' property was hazardous because of inadequate lighting, steps that were dimensionally non-uniform and single step separated by platforms in lieu of ramps, however plaintiff had been to the home before and was a neighbor of the defendants. Defendants owe no greater duty to the plaintiff as a social guest than they do for themselves.
Further, plaintiff has some responsibility ... where he ... says that he cannot see a step. The step was not in a place it would not be expected. That is, it was a step coming off of a porch. It was a single step. It's not related to the other step so there's no question that they should be uniform.
There was nothing inherently hazardous in the area. [A]s a social guest the owner of the property is not a guarantor of ... a social guest's safety and, therefore, the Court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact and the motion is granted.
On appeal, plaintiff contends that the facts are sufficiently contested as to foreseeable harm and whether the standard of reasonable care has been breached to preclude summary judgment. We agree.
Under the common law of premises liability, a landowner owes increasing care depending on whether the visitor is a trespasser, licensee or social guest, or business invitee. Parks v. Rogers, 176 N.J. 491, 497, 825 A.2d 1128 (2003); Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 433-34, 625 A.2d 1110 (1993); Snyder v. I. Jay Realty Co., 30 N.J. 303, 311-12, 153 A.2d 1 (1959). Here, the motion judge considered plaintiff to be defendants' social guest. According him that status under the common law, defendants should have warned plaintiff of any dangerous condition known to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maran v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC
...on the visitor's classification as a trespasser, licensee or social guest, or business invitee. See Sussman v. Mermer , 373 N.J. Super. 501, 504, 862 A.2d 572 (App. Div. 2004). A business invitee, such as a retail customer or hotel guest, was owed a "duty of reasonable care to guard against......
-
Sanders v. Sheraton Hotels & Resorts, Abc Corp.
...the visitor was classified as a trespasser, licensee or social guest, or business invitee. Sussman v. Mermer, 373 N.J. Super. 501, 504, 862 A.2d 572, 574 (N.J. Super.Ct. App. Div. 2004). A business invitee, such as a hotel guest, was owed a "duty of reasonable care to guard against any dang......
-
Burnette v. Hilton Franchise Holdings LLC
...will apply New Jersey's four-part legal test used to determine the scope of a landowner's duty of care. See Sussman v. Mermer, 373 N.J. Super. 501, 505 (Ct. App. Div. 2004) (enumerating the four-factors as "(1) the relationship of the parties, (2) the nature of the attendant risk, (3) the o......
-
Witter v. Sterlingbrook Equine, Inc.
...that “the unguarded wall is a significant safety hazard that was responsible for [Mr. Witter's] fall and sustaining injuries to his body.” (Id.) The expert also opined Defendants committed “careless, negligent, and unsafe acts and omissions.” (Id.) Notwithstanding the expert report, the Cou......