Goldberg Segalla’s keen insight into case law and the ability to wage a meticulous defense argument freed our client from a lawsuit brought by a plaintiff involved in a mishap at a commercial property.

The case — in which a $240K global settlement demand was made — stemmed from a trip-and-fall accident in November 2020, which took place on an exterior ramp at a building with multiple tenants.

The plaintiff alleged our client — as well as a co-defendant named in the suit — owed a non-delegable common-law duty of care to inspect, maintain and repair the ramp, as the owner and landlord of the property, respectively.

The ramp was situated in a common area of the commercial property. The governing lease agreement provided that the co-defendant was responsible to inspect, maintain and repair all exterior ramps in “common areas” of the property. The suit, however, also claimed our client had a responsibility to the plaintiff, alleging that our client “assumed a duty of care to inspect, repair and maintain the exterior ramp because (it) purportedly voluntarily assumed this duty.”

Leading the defense for Goldberg Segalla was our Newark-based attorney Anthony I. Perchiacca. Assisting Anthony was Daniel L. Klein, a partner in the firm’s Princeton office.

Anthony argued there were genuine issues of material facts that preclude plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against our client. In particular, the record was void of any evidence showing our client would inspect the ramp for all dangerous conditions, such as the crack in the concrete situated on the ramp that allegedly caused plaintiff’s accident.

Anthony also noted the plaintiff’s theory that our client “voluntarily” assumed “a duty of care” was unique and that case law was minimal regarding other suits involving similar circumstances. As such, Anthony had to draw differences between the limited case law where a defendant was found to have “voluntarily assumed a duty of care” with their actions and the circumstances presented in this case.

Anthony’s success in showing that unique contrast proved to be the difference for our client during oral argument, as the court ultimately ruled in our client’s favor. While the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment against the co-defendant was granted, the claimant’s motion attempting to establish that our client also voluntarily assumed a duty of care was denied by the court in its entirety.

The ruling was especially important not only because it spared our client from damages, but also because a loss would have strengthened the plaintiff’s case against our client in future proceedings. Our client also would have had more liability imputed on it if the plaintiff’s motion was successful, which Anthony’s skillful defense prevented from happening.