Duty of Care Existed for Condo Association, Court Says in Case of Missing Handrail
"We conclude the association had a duty to the unit owners to maintain the stairs, and that included a duty to replace the missing center handrail," an Appellate Division panel said.
December 29, 2017 at 02:37 PM
4 minute read
A New Jersey appeals court ruled that a condominium association's duty to ensure that common areas are kept in safe conditions included the use of a center handrail on a wide staircase, and didn't hinge on the plaintiff's legal status.
A three-judge Appellate Division panel, in Lechler v. 303 Sunset Avenue Condominium Association, said an association can be held negligent if a unit owner is injured because of a dangerous condition in a common area, “and that duty extended to residents of the condominium building, regardless of their characterization as licensees or invitees.”
Under the Condominium Act, associations are responsible for “the maintenance, repair, replacement, cleaning and sanitation of the common element,” wrote Judge Richard Hoffman for the panel.
“[W]e conclude the association had a duty to the unit owners to maintain the stairs, and that included a duty to replace the missing center handrail,” Hoffman said.
Judges Susan Reisner and Robert Gilson joined in the Dec. 29 ruling.
In this case, plaintiff Thomas Lechler, now 56, was injured on Aug. 24, 2014, when he stumbled on a flight of outdoor steps at his condominium in Asbury Park. The flight of steps was 158 inches wide. There were handrails at either side of the steps, but none down the center, according to the ruling.
At one point there had been a center handrail, but it had been removed and never replaced, the ruling said. The association claimed that a state building code inspector in 2012 said a center handrail was not required.
At trial, Lechler testified that, upon stumbling, he quickened his pace in an effort to regain his balance, but ended up breaking his heel when he reached the sidewalk. He sued the condominium association and its maintenance company, Townsmen Properties, for damages.
The association and Townsmen moved for a directed verdict in their favor. Hudson County Superior Court Judge Lisa Rose granted the motion, because of Lechler's status as a licensee and his awareness that the handrail was missing, and dismissed the lawsuit.
The lawsuit had been filed in Hudson County and tried there because that county was the location of Lechler's primary residence. His condominium in Asbury Park was a summer home.
On appeal, Hoffman said the association had a statutory duty, under the Condominium Act, to maintain the common areas.
“Statutes are evidence of a defendant's duty of care,” the judge wrote. “In this case, plaintiff clearly falls within the class of persons for whose benefit the statute was enacted.”
Hoffman said associations have the right to adopt bylaws that prohibit residents from suing them for negligence, but noted that 303 Sunset had not adopted such a bylaw.
In this case, Hoffman said, it was clear that Lechler had established a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the association.
In order to establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty and that the breach caused the plaintiff's injury.
Hoffman quoted the state Supreme Court's 1988 ruling in Thanasoulis v. Winston Towers 200 Association: “The most significant responsibility of an association is the management and maintenance of the common areas of a condominium complex.”
Although it was obvious that at one point there had been a center handrail, the association was in a “better position” to know that its absence created a potentially hazardous condition, Hoffman said.
Lechler's attorney, Richard Krueger, said the ruling is an important one for condominium owners.
“The ruling clarifies part of the law that needed clarification,” said Krueger, of Krueger & Krueger in Linden. “Condominium living is widespread in New Jersey, and is sure to become more so.”
Patrick Minter, of Morristown's Donnelly Minter & Kelly, represented the association and Townsmen. He could not be reached for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All3rd Circuit Nominee Mangi Sees 'No Pathway to Confirmation,' Derides 'Organized Smear Campaign'
4 minute readSenate Judiciary Committee OKs Retired Judge for New Role, Advances 6 Superior Court Nominees
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-81
- 2Mental Health Issues Don’t Get a Holiday
- 3'It's Got to Be a Wake-Up Call:' Atlanta Attorney Hopes $16M Verdict Spurs Training Changes at Hotels
- 4FTC Bans 'Junk Fees' in Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
- 5California Legal Awards Moving to Mid-Summer Date in 2025, Adds New Categories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250