Appellate Court Affirmed Trial Court’s Decision to Grant Summary Judgment to Defendants as to Plaintiff’s Theories of Liability Under New Jersey’s Title 59 and Private Negligence.

The plaintiff was “going for a double” in a men’s softball game when he fractured his ankle as he attempted to slide to second base and his cleated foot caught in a six-foot ripped seam and divot in the artificial turf. The torn turf was hidden before he went down, and he had never noticed the tear on the multiple times he had played there before. No problems had been previously reported. The housing authority and the city maintained and inspected the field frequently. The league’s umpires also inspected the field prior to play. 

While the motion court found that a dangerous condition may have been established by the plaintiff, the lack of actual or constructive notice was fatal to his claim. The plaintiff failed to show that the defective condition existed for any length of time prior to his fall. Thus, the plaintiff could not prove that the municipal entities were palpably unreasonable in failing to correct the problem, especially where the record established frequent and routine inspections. 

As to the league, the plaintiff’s expert failed to address the appropriate standard of care to the non-owner/operator. The expert provided no facts to support his conclusion that the league failed to educate or train its employees on inspecting artificial turf. Rather, the facts supported that a pre-game inspection had, in fact, occurred on the date of the accident by the umpire.
 

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}