Court Opinion

ID: 9640476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:06:46.997438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:30.135529
License: Public Domain

VERNIERO, J.,
dissenting.
We recently affirmed that “[a] host’s duty to a social guest includes an obligation to warn of a known dangerous condition on the premises except when the guest is aware of the condition or by reasonable use of the facilities would observe it.” Tighe v. Peterson, 175 N.J. 240, 241, 814 A.2d 1066 (2002) (emphasis added). Applying that standard, I would conclude that the staircase’s lack of illumination and its abbreviated banister either were known to plaintiff or were conditions that plaintiff would have observed “by reasonable use of the facilities[.]” Ibid. (Substituting “[her] faculties” for “facilities” in the governing standard, see ante at 500 n. 5, 825 A.2d at 1133 n. 5, does not alter my view.) Plaintiff obviously knew that it was dark. Plaintiff also presumably became acquainted with the banister when she had ascended the stairs prior to her unfortunate fall, which occurred sometime later in the evening. Finding this case ripe for disposition as a matter of law, I would affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division and, therefore, respectfully dissent.
Justice COLEMAN joins in this opinion.
For reversing and remanding — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, and ALBIN — 5.
For affirming — Justices COLEMAN and VERNIERO — 2.