SABRINA L. REAVES-HARRINGTON VS. THOMAS D. Â DIGUISEPPI(L-0333-14, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5094-15T3

On July 4, 2013, tenants Sabrina Reaves-Harrington and Dedria Dougans were on a Bridgeton porch leased by Dougans when a triangular wooden "scroll" fixed to a porch pole/roof dislodged and struck Sabrina; later a wooden pole fell and struck Dedria.
Dougans had a long-term lease (since May 2011) that did not obligate the landlord, Thomas DiGuiseppi, to inspect, maintain, or repair the premises.
Neither Thomas nor the tenants knew or observed any defect or impending failure of the porch components before the incident.
Plaintiffs sued Thomas for negligence, arguing res ipsa loquitur should apply to impose landlord liability.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Thomas; plaintiffs appealed.
The Appellate Division affirmed, holding plaintiffs failed to show Thomas knew or had reason to know of a dangerous condition and that res ipsa did not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether landlord owed common-law duty to inspect/repair latent defects after leasing	Res ipsa loquitur applies; landlord should be held liable for injuries from falling porch components	Absent contract, regulatory duty, or knowledge/reason to know of defect, landlord has no duty to inspect/repair	No duty imposed; res ipsa inapplicable; summary judgment for landlord affirmed
Whether evidence created triable issue that landlord "knew or should have known" of dangerous condition	Plaintiffs argued landlord must have had reason to know given the failure	Defendant showed no notice, reports, or regulatory duty to inspect the porch components	Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence landlord knew or had reason to know; no triable issue
Relevance of regulatory or statutory duties to landlord liability	Plaintiffs relied on case law permitting liability where independent duties/regulations exist	Defendant noted no applicable regulatory inspection duty here	Court: regulatory-based exceptions (as in Meier) not present; distinction dispositive
Applicability of short-term tenancy exception (Reyes)	Plaintiffs suggested modern cases erode Patton and support liability	Defendant emphasized this was a multi-year lease situation unlike short-term rentals	Court: Reyes and Meier distinguishable; Patton/Restatement rule controls here

Patton v. The Texas Co., 13 N.J. Super. 42 (App. Div. 1951) (landlord not liable for post-possession defects absent contract to repair or fraudulent concealment)
Szeles v. Vena, 321 N.J. Super. 601 (App. Div. 1999) (recognizing Restatement rule that lessor not liable for conditions arising after lessee takes possession; discusses exceptions)
Meier v. D'Ambose, 419 N.J. Super. 439 (App. Div. 2011) (landlord not entitled to summary judgment where regulatory inspection duties could show landlord had reason to know of dangerous condition)
Reyes v. Egner, 404 N.J. Super. 433 (App. Div. 2009) (short-term rental context can present different analysis; suggests Patton's fraudulent-concealment language is less central under Restatement)