SANDRA RIOTTO VS. FAIRFIELD GARDEN CENTER (L-0306-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1878-15T1

Plaintiff Sandra Riotto was injured when her car rolled over after being struck by a drunk driver on westbound Route 46 near the entrance to Fairfield Garden Center.
Defendants Fairfield (tenant/operator) and Fernicola Properties (owner/landlord) had constructed a large decorative island (900‑lb cement fish statue, rock waterfall) approximately one foot inside the Route 46 right‑of‑way, surrounded by low brick pavers.
Plaintiff’s accident‑reconstruction expert opined most of the island and pavers were within the public right‑of‑way and that the obstruction reduced the clear zone from ~40 feet to ~10 feet, causing plaintiff’s car to hit the pavers, become airborne, and roll over.
Plaintiff offered studies and other evidence that obstructions in highway clear zones are a major cause of fatalities; there had been other accidents near the property and at least one vehicle that left the road had struck a sign in front of the center.
Defendants submitted contrary expert opinion that plaintiff’s car became airborne on initial impact and the island did not exacerbate the crash; they also emphasized lack of prior accidents specifically involving the island.
The trial court granted defendants’ summary‑judgment motions, finding no duty because statutory violations did not create a private cause of action and concluding the danger was not foreseeable due to lack of prior incidents; the Appellate Division reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of common‑law duty and foreseeability	Riotto: defendants had a common‑law duty to avoid placing dangerous obstructions in the right‑of‑way; placement made injury foreseeable	Defendants: no duty arises because statutory violations do not create a private cause of action and no prior accidents tied to the island made hazard unforeseeable	Duty exists under common law; foreseeability is a factual question for the jury; summary judgment reversed
Whether placement of island was proximate cause of injuries	Riotto: island within right‑of‑way reduced clear zone and caused rollover after impact	Defendants: plaintiff’s car was airborne on initial impact; island did not contribute	Proximate cause disputed on the record; jury must resolve factual conflict
Proper standard for foreseeability inquiry	Riotto: totality of circumstances governs; absence of prior identical incidents does not preclude foreseeability	Defendants: lack of prior accidents involving the island shows unforeseeability	Court applies totality‑of‑circumstances; prior incidents are relevant but not dispositive; issue for jury
Appropriateness of summary judgment	Riotto: material factual disputes exist on foreseeability and causation	Defendants: their expert reports entitle them to judgment as a matter of law	Summary judgment improper; genuine issues of material fact preclude judgment as a matter of law

Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, 149 N.J. 496 (rejects sole reliance on absence of prior incidents; totality‑of‑circumstances test for foreseeability)
Hill v. Yaskin, 75 N.J. 139 (foreseeability defines duty; factual questions usually for jury)
Seals v. County of Morris, 210 N.J. 157 (hazards in highway clear zones may create jury question on foreseeability and duty)
Polzo v. County of Essex, 209 N.J. 51 (summary‑judgment standard; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Conley v. Guerrero, 228 N.J. 339 (appellate de novo review of summary judgment)