On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Docket No. L-1298-05.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Cuff and Simonelli.
Plaintiff sustained personal injuries as a result of a fall on defendants' property. She appeals from the order of December 15, 2006, granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing the Complaint with prejudice. We affirm.
The following facts are derived from the record submitted in support of and opposition to the motion and are viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995). On February 20, 2003, plaintiff went to defendants' home to attend a meeting of a social group called the Haddonfield Assembly. According to plaintiff, "[t]here had been a lot of snow the week before, a couple of days before" her fall. Defendants had shoveled the snow from the sidewalk and walkway leading to the front door of their home. Plaintiff saw snow piled on either side of the walkway.
Plaintiff arrived at defendants' home about 7:30 p.m. It was "really cold" when plaintiff arrived and below freezing, but it was not snowing. Plaintiff parked her car in front of defendants' house and walked up the apron of their driveway to the sidewalk. Plaintiff was wearing loafers with leather soles at the time. The outside lights were on and plaintiff could see where she was stepping. She did not see any place on the driveway or sidewalk where the snow had melted; the sidewalk did not have snow on it. Plaintiff said the sidewalk "didn't look icy, no, otherwise I would have been -- I would have walked in the snow then." Plaintiff also stated, "I certainly wouldn't step on ice, you know"; "I mean it was shiny" and "the sidewalk, you know, was glistening, but it didn't look wet."
Plaintiff turned from the sidewalk and walked up the walkway to the front door of defendants' home. There was snow on either side of the walkway, but no snow or ice on the walkway itself. The walkway and stoop leading to the front door had been cleared of snow. Plaintiff entered defendants' home through the front door.
Plaintiff was at defendants' home until about 9:30 p.m. When she left, she exited the same front door she had entered when she arrived. She stated when she got to the end of the stoop she "turned and looked down the walkway" and "[i]t looked the same as when I had come," there was "[n]o snow" and no ice "that I could see." Plaintiff put her left foot down, slipped immediately, and fell to the ground.
Plaintiff claimed she slipped on ice in front of the stoop. However, she admitted she did not see any ice because the walkway "looked the same as when I went in, so it did not look like ice, no." Plaintiff stated she must have fallen on ice, "[b]ecause I slipped."
Plaintiff admitted she did not know if defendants had any knowledge about the condition of the walkway the evening she fell, or any knowledge about its condition that she did not have. Although she claimed the "area iced over while we were in the house," she admitted she did not know if defendants knew about this condition.
Plaintiff claims defendants owed her a duty of care to either use ice control/traction control/ice melt substance on the walkway, and/or to warn her of the lack of use of such substances, and breached that duty. Judge John Fratto granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding defendants had no duty to salt or place other snow melt on the ...