Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1489-14T2
03-15-2016
ELIZABETH CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRIARWOOD CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., and WINDSOR HEALTHCARE COMMUNITIES, INC., Defendants-Respondents.
Lawrence C. Kroll argued the cause for appellant (Sapiro Gottlieb & Kroll, attorneys; Mr. Kroll, on the brief). Eric D. Heicklen argued the cause for respondents (Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Heicklen and Lauren Adornetto Woods, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fasciale and Nugent. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-1651-13. Lawrence C. Kroll argued the cause for appellant (Sapiro Gottlieb & Kroll, attorneys; Mr. Kroll, on the brief). Eric D. Heicklen argued the cause for respondents (Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Heicklen and Lauren Adornetto Woods, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from an October 10, 2014 order dismissing her complaint with prejudice and granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Briarwood Care and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. and Windsor Healthcare Communities, Inc. We affirm.
Plaintiff visited a resident for approximately two hours at the Briarwood Care Rehabilitation Center. Plaintiff admitted that when she first entered the room, she saw a mattress on the floor between two beds. The mattress was placed on the floor as part of a seizure protocol for the resident's roommate. Plaintiff exited and entered the room at least once during her visit. At one point, plaintiff walked to the other side of the bed, tripped and fell over the mattress, and sustained injury. Plaintiff testified in her deposition that she forgot the mattress was there.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that there is no duty to warn of an open and obvious dangerous condition. Plaintiff opposed the motion contending there existed genuine issues of material fact precluding a grant of summary judgment. The judge agreed with defendants, rendered an oral opinion, and entered the order under review.
On appeal, plaintiff argues the judge erred in concluding that the hazardous condition was open and obvious. After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that plaintiff's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and affirm substantially for the thoughtful reasons expressed by the motion judge.
When reviewing an order granting summary judgment, we apply "the same standard governing the trial court." Oyola v. Xing Lan Liu, 431 N.J. Super. 493, 497 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 216 N.J. 86 (2013). We owe no deference to the motion judge's conclusions on issues of law. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). Applying these standards, we conclude there was no error.
Both parties agree that plaintiff was a business invitee, and therefore defendants owed plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to warn against known or reasonably discoverable dangerous conditions on the property. Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 434 (1993). The parties disputed, however, whether the location of the mattress was open and obvious.
Plaintiff admitted she saw the mattress when she entered the room. She remained in the room for two hours. An aide asked her to assist in changing the resident, and when plaintiff walked to the other side of the bed, she forgot the mattress was there and fell. Thus, "even if the conditions noted could be considered dangerous, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that [plaintiff] was unaware of those conditions." Endre v. Arnold, 300 N.J. Super. 136, 143 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 150 N.J. 27 (1997); see also Longo v. Aprile, 374 N.J. Super. 469, 474 (App. Div. 2005) (concluding that a neighbor who fell off of a roof while performing gratuitous work for a neighbor could not succeed on a negligence claim because "the danger that he encountered was self-evident and, therefore, not actionable").
We conclude that the mattress on the floor was open and obvious, and that plaintiff could have, and indeed did, observe the condition through a reasonable use of her faculties.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION