AMAL RAMADAN v. ASSAF QUDDAFI

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5951-04T55951-04T5

AMAL RAMADAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ASSAF QUDDAFI,

Defendant-Respondent.

_____________________________________________________________

 

Argued March 8, 2006 - Decided June 7, 2006

Before Judges Wefing, Wecker and Graves.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Passaic County, L-101-04.

Patrick X. Amoresano argued the cause for

appellant (Silverman and Roedel, attorneys;

Mr. Amoresano, of counsel; David S. Silverman,

on the brief).

Jose B. Moreira argued the cause for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Amal Ramadan appeals from an order granting summary judgment to defendant and an order denying reconsideration. After reviewing the record and applicable law in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we reverse.

At approximately 7:30 p.m. on February 18, 2003, plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on a walkway that was covered with snow and ice leading from a two-family residence to the street. Prior to the accident, plaintiff was visiting with her friend, who rents the second floor of the two-family house owned by defendant, Assaf Quddafi. Defendant resided on the first floor of the two-family house at the time of the accident.

At her deposition, plaintiff testified that there was a major snowstorm on February 17, 2003, the day before the accident, and that someone had attempted to clear the walkway. Plaintiff described the condition of the walkway as "slushy and icy and there was snow." In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant was "careless and negligent in failing to properly manage, maintain, and/or repair the premises, more particularly the sidewalk, causing same to become hazardous."

As part of her opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted two photographs to the trial court, showing that the walkway she fell on extends from the front of defendant's house to the street. Nevertheless, citing to Jimenez v. Maisch, 329 N.J. Super. 398 (App. Div. 2000), defendant contends, as he did before the trial court, that he owed no duty to plaintiff, an invitee who slipped and fell "due to ice and snow even if the falldown [was] on a private walkway." We cannot agree.

Because plaintiff was the guest of a tenant, and she fell on a private walkway located on defendant's property, liability depends upon a landlord's obligation to his tenant and his tenant's guests. In such cases, "[a] landlord has a duty to exercise reasonable care to guard against foreseeable dangers arising from use of those portions of the rental property over which the landlord retains control." Scully v. Fitzgerald, 179 N.J. 114, 121 (2004); see also Skupienski v. Maly, 27 N.J. 240, 248 (1958) (recognizing landlord's duty to maintain private walkway used by tenants and guests). As noted by the Court, a landlord must render common areas "reasonably safe for the use of both tenants and their guests." Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Sec. Corp., 185 N.J. 100, 121 (2005); see also Taneian v. Meghrigian, 15 N.J. 267, 280 (1954) ("The duty of reasonable care arises out of the relation that comes from the acceptance of the tendered use, a use in which the landlord and the tenants have a common interest.").

Although the facts in this case are somewhat similar to the facts in Jimenez, we do not agree with the trial court's conclusion that defendant had no duty to make sure that the walkway was reasonably safe. While the plaintiff here and in Jimenez were both invitees, there was no landlord-tenant relationship in Jimenez, and the nature of what constituted reasonable conduct on the part of the landowner in each situation was quite different. In Jimenez, the property was a private residence not yet cleared of snowfall in excess of thirty inches, and the accident occurred while "[a] state of emergency was in effect from January 8, 1996 to January 13, 1996." 329 N.J. Super. at 400. Here, there had been a significant snowfall the day prior to the accident, but the landlord had ample opportunity to clear the walkway, and we are not convinced as a matter of law that defendant did all that was necessary and reasonable to insure that the private walkway where plaintiff fell was reasonably safe for defendant's tenant and the tenant's guests.

Whether defendant discharged his duty to use reasonable care for plaintiff's safe use of the walkway is a fact question for a jury to decide in light of all the relevant circumstances. A jury should consider whether it was unreasonable for defendant not to salt or sand the walkway, as alleged by plaintiff, and it should consider all of the other relevant circumstances, which may include:

[T]he extent and timing of the snowfall, the time of day or night, the nature of the efforts actually taken by the owner to maintain the premises, the practicality of cleaning up in stages or by priorities, the plaintiff's care for [her] own safety including [her footwear], . . . and any other pertinent factors. These are all matters for jury considerations.

[Moore v. Schering Plough, Inc., 328 N.J. Super. 300, 307 (App. Div. 2000).]

In our view, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that defendant failed to satisfy his duty of care to plaintiff. We therefore conclude that summary judgment was improperly granted.

Reversed and remanded for trial.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-5951-04T5

June 7, 2006