U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ETC. VS. SILVANA SOTILLO(F-4359-14, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0653-15T3

On November 22, 2012, Martin Rosenbaum exited a condominium and fell on a driveway maintained by Highlands Condo Association; his daughter Nanette fell when coming to his aid.
Plaintiffs sued for premises liability, alleging a "dangerous and defective condition" — specifically a substantial, abrupt unmarked step/height differential (about 12 inches) between two adjoining driveways.
Discovery produced a photograph showing the severe, unmarked step-down with identical pavement coloring (no striping or warning).
Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs alleged a design defect that requires expert proof; the trial court granted summary judgment and denied reconsideration, concluding expert testimony was necessary.
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing their claim was one of a dangerous condition with actual notice to defendant and did not require expert testimony; the Appellate Division reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo.
The appellate court reversed, holding a jury could find the unmarked, camouflaged 12-inch step constituted a dangerous condition understandable by lay jurors without expert testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs pleaded a design defect requiring expert testimony	Rosenbaum: Complaint alleges a dangerous condition and notice, not a design defect; no expert needed	Highlands: Condition results from design; expert required to prove design defect and breach	Court: Complaint did not specifically plead a design defect; expert not necessarily required
Whether expert testimony was required to show the slope was dangerous	Rosenbaum: Height differential and camouflaging are within lay perception; jury can decide danger	Highlands: Slope/transition is a technical/design issue beyond lay understanding; expert needed	Court: Lay jurors could assess danger of an unmarked ~12" step-down; expert not required
Whether evidence of deviation from construction standards is required to prove negligence	Rosenbaum: Notice + observable dangerous condition suffice; deviation evidence unnecessary	Highlands: Need evidence of deviation from standards to show negligence	Court: Deviation evidence can help but is not required to prove a foreseeable dangerous condition
Whether summary judgment was appropriate	Rosenbaum: Genuine issue of material fact exists regarding dangerous condition and notice	Highlands: No sufficient proof without expert; summary judgment proper	Court: Summary judgment reversed; factual issue for jury remains

Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395 (when expert testimony is required vs. lay judgment)
Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426 (camouflaged step danger understandable to jurors without experts)
D'Alessandro v. Hartzel, 422 N.J. Super. 575 (design/construction defect allegations often require expert proof)
Garafola v. Rosecliff Realty Co., 24 N.J. Super. 28 (deviation from construction standards not always required to show foreseeable danger)
Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens, Inc., 175 N.J. 559 (knowledge/notice element for premises liability)
Vander Groef v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 32 N.J. Super. 365 (mere accident insufficient; need proof of dangerous construction unless obvious)
Cypress Point Condo. Ass'n v. Adria Towers, L.L.C., 226 N.J. 403 (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)