Bicyclist injuries sustained on a sidewalk after contacting defendant’s fence; Premises liability claim against the owner of adjacent property; Duty element; Berman v LaRose; Whether defendant created a new hazard

The court held that defendant-adjacent property owner “did not owe plaintiff a duty to warn or protect her against the hazardous conditions on the public sidewalk and” that the signage it placed on its fence did not cause her injuries. Thus, defendant was properly granted summary judgment. Plaintiff was riding her bicycle on the sidewalk when the “handlebars clipped the fence at the corner of defendant’s lot. This caused her to lose control of the bicycle” and fall. The court concluded that the premises-liability theory of negligence did not apply because “defendant did not own or possess the public sidewalk adjoining its property[.]” In the absence of a statute, an abutting owner ordinarily has no duty “‘as to the condition of the sidewalk or public way, unless the landowner has physically intruded upon the area in some manner or has done some act which either increased the existent hazard or created a new hazard.’” In this case, there was “no dispute that the fence did not physically intrude upon the sidewalk.” And plaintiff did not challenge defendant’s claim that it did not modify the fence. According to plaintiff’s own consultant, it was governmental entities “that created the alleged hazard by improperly replacing the sidewalks and curb cuts in 2020.” Rather, plaintiff contended “that defendant created a new hazard by covering the fence with large political signs, which created a ‘blind corner’ that prevented” her from seeing potential hazards. But the court noted that her testimony showed “she was still able to see and appreciate” the hazards of two vehicles around the corner that were stopped at the intersection. Even assuming “that defendant breached a duty by covering the fence with large signs in violation of a local ordinance, there was no genuine issue of material fact that the obstructed view did not cause plaintiff’s injuries.” Affirmed.