In premises cases, plaintiffs often seek to establish that a property owner’s failure to comply with local, state, and federal building codes and regulations is proof of negligence, and indeed, the failure to comply with the applicable code regulations can spell disaster in a personal injury case. In Danley v. Pappalardo, the property owner sought to establish that the converse was true and that compliance with the regulations ought to insulate a defendant property owner from liability.

In Danley, the plaintiff rented a vacation home from the defendant property owner. The property had recently been renovated to include a third floor kitchen, accessible by an interior staircase. Plaintiff alleged he didn’t realize that a single-step leading to the landing of the third-floor stairs existed, and stumbled onto the landing and down the stairs while walking along the newly added kitchen counter.

The plaintiff’s expert insisted that the design of the single-step landing was hazardous and called for a railing or other form of warning. Conversely, the defendant’s expert opined that the single-step and landing conformed with New Jersey’s residential building code and met the state’s guidelines for public health and safety.

Based on compliance with the applicable building code, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiff successfully argued that while the building itself may have met the necessary technical standards, this compliance did not dispense with the defendant’s duty of care owed by a landowner to his lessor. The case was remanded to the trial court to allow the finder of fact to determine whether the defendant breached his duty of care.

Thanks to Emily Kidder for her contribution to this post and please write to Mike Bono for more information.