Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3465-11T3
08-18-2014
MIGUELINA HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX AND RARITAN BAY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, Defendants-Respondents.
Nash & Tobias, L.L.C., attorneys for appellant (Richard S. Panitch, on the brief). Convery, Convery & Shihar, P.C., attorneys for respondents (Clark W. Convery and Bernard H. Shihar, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Espinosa and O'Connor. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-7313-10. Nash & Tobias, L.L.C., attorneys for appellant (Richard S. Panitch, on the brief). Convery, Convery & Shihar, P.C., attorneys for respondents (Clark W. Convery and Bernard H. Shihar, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants County of Middlesex and Raritan Bay Mental Health Center (Center). We affirm.
Plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on snow and ice while walking in the parking lot of the Center, which is owned and operated by Middlesex County. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging defendants were negligent for failing to remove the snow and ice from the driveway. The trial court found that, as public entities, defendants were shielded from liability under the common-law immunity for snow removal, see Miehl v. Darpino, 53 N.J. 49 (1968), and granted defendants summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
Plaintiff argues that the immunity is unavailing to defendants under Bligen v. Jersey City Housing Authority, 131 N.J. 124 (1993). In Bligen, the plaintiff slipped on ice in the driveway of the defendant, the Jersey City Housing Authority. In a holding it characterized as "narrow," the Court found that, although a public entity, under the common-law a municipal landlord must adhere to the same duty of care as a private landlord. Therefore, as a municipal landlord, the Jersey City Public Housing Authority was not immunized from liability for failing to prevent foreseeable injuries, including those caused by snow or ice. Id. at 133-36. The Court also recognized that the property under the control of the Jersey City Housing Authority was limited and finite, making the removal of snow and ice from its property relatively manageable. Ibid.
Plaintiff contends that because the parking area adjacent to the Center is also limited and finite, then defendants do not enjoy common-law snow removal immunity. First, it is not disputed that Middlesex County, the entity that actually owns and manages the Center, has many other properties. It would be impractical and prohibitively costly for it to have to remove all snow and ice from its driveways, parking lots, and walkways. See Miele, supra, 53 N.J. at 54. Second, the Center is not a public housing authority or a municipal landlord.
Defendants do not fall within that exception to the common-law immunity for snow removal activity that was created in Bligen for public housing authorities. The trial court correctly determined that Bligen is inapposite and that, under the facts of this case, defendants have immunity from liability.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION