When Slip-and-Fall Accidents in NJ Result from “Open and Obvious” Hazards
Paramus personal injury attorneys explain your rights and responsibilities under the law
Slip-and-fall accidents are a significant cause of personal injury in New Jersey, often occurring due to hazardous conditions on someone else’s property. These accidents may result from a variety of dangers, including wet floors, uneven pavement, or debris left in walkways. In such cases, the law can impose liability for injuries on the person who controls the premises. However, one critical concept in premises liability law is the “open and obvious hazard.” This legal concept can determine whether the property owner or the alleged victim is responsible for the accident and subsequent injuries. In this article, we’ll explain how a slip-and-fall case could turn on this point of law.
Defining “open and obvious” hazards
An open and obvious hazard refers to a potentially dangerous condition on a property that is readily apparent to any reasonable person who looks at it. Property owners can argue that they are not liable for accidents, because visitors should have been aware of the danger and avoided it. Several important court decisions have clarified the way New Jersey law treats open and obvious hazards:
- Lokar v. Church of the Sacred Heart, 133 A. 2d 12 – NJ: Supreme Court 1957. In this case, the plaintiff had been struck by a low-hanging chain serving as a gate barrier that another visitor had inadvertently swung when he stepped over it. The Court alluded to the doctrine of open and obvious hazards, when it declared “there is no obligation, save in exceptional circumstances, … ‘to protect the invitee against dangers which are known to him, or which are so apparent that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and be fully able to look out for himself’….”
- Jimenez v. APPLEBEE’S NEIGHBORHOOD GRILL & BAR, NJ: Appellate Div. 2015. In this case, a restaurant patron, who had been served a steak fajita on an iron skillet, was burned in the eye and on the face when he bowed his head over his food to pray. He argued the server had given no warning about possible danger, but simply said, “Enjoy your meal.” The court ruled that “the danger posed by a plate of sizzling hot food was self-evident. Therefore, we conclude that the motion judge correctly determined that defendants had no duty to warn plaintiff that the food was sizzling hot and should be approached with due care.”
- Cunningham v. BRIARWOOD CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., NJ: Appellate Div. 2016. In this case, a visitor to a rehab facility tripped over a mattress that was lying on the floor between two beds as a seizure protocol. Plaintiff argued the mattress was not an open and obvious hazard, but the facts revealed that an employee had alerted the plaintiff to the presence of the mattress, and the plaintiff had navigated around the mattress a couple of times before forgetting it was there and tripping. The court upheld a dismissal of the lawsuit, writing, “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.”
As these cases illustrate, the fact that a hazard is open and obvious can shift the burden of ensuring safety from the property owner to the visitor.
Responsibilities of property owners and visitors
Property owners have an obligation to maintain a reasonably safe environment for their visitors. While they are not required to warn visitors about open and obvious hazards, they must still act responsibly by addressing dangers that could lead to accidents. For instance, if an open hazard is so inherently dangerous that it could cause injury despite being visible, the property owner might be expected to take action—such as repairing it, removing it, or using barriers to limit access.
Additionally, if circumstances impede a visitor’s ability to avoid the hazard, so that the visitor has no choice but to take on the hazard, a property owner might be liable. A court can also consider factors such as distractions that might cause a visitor to miss a hazard that would otherwise be obvious.
Visitors are expected to exercise reasonable care while on the property, which includes being aware of their surroundings. If a hazard is obvious and the visitor fails to avoid it, this can reduce or eliminate the property owner’s liability. For example, if a person slips on a wet floor in a store that has clear signage warning about the wet surface, the visitor’s failure to heed that warning could relieve the owner of responsibility.
Contact Razi & Giampa Law in Paramus for a free slip-and-fall accident consultation
Razi & Giampa Law in Paramus provides highly professional and compassionate legal representation for victims of slip-and-fall accidents in Bergen County and throughout New Jersey. To schedule a free consultation, call us today at (201) 534-5011 or contact our firm online.
