New Jersey Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal Of Dirt Biker’s Claim For Injuries Suffered In Crash While Trespassing At A Closed Quarry

May 28, 2024

By: Carl L. Engel

On May 20, 2024, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint that had been filed by a dirt biker who was injured while riding at a closed quarry when he collided into a steel cable that had been suspended three feet over a trail. The court found that because he was a trespasser at the quarry, the owners could be liable for his injuries only if they had put the cable there with the intention of injuring or warding off trespassers. However, the evidence showed that the cable was a component of machinery being used to dredge the quarry, so the trial court was correct to enter summary judgment in favor of the quarry owners, dismissing the biker’s complaint.

On March 1, 2020, Bryan Callahan was seriously injured when he struck a steel cable while riding a dirt bike around the grounds of a quarry owned by Tri-Borough Sand and Stone, Eureka Stone Quarry, Inc., and James D. Morrissey, Inc. The cable was a component of machinery that was being used to dredge the quarry. Because the accident had happened on a Sunday afternoon, the quarry was closed and there were no employees on site when it occurred.

On February 23, 2022, Mr. Callahan sued the quarry owners for causing his injuries by negligently leaving the cable extended across a dirt trail. Mr. Callahan testified at his deposition that he’d ridden his dirt bike at the quarry many times, and had always checked the trails for hazards, but had never checked the paths along the rim of the quarry’s open pit. He estimated that he was travelling thirty-five to forty miles per hour when he struck the cable, which was elevated three feet over a path along the quarry rim. His mother asserted in an affidavit that she’d ridden ATVs at the quarry in the 1990s with “hundreds” of other riders and had never been told that riding wasn’t permitted there.

A safety director from Eureka Stone Quarry testified that the steel cable was being used in the process of dredging the quarry. The steel cable was extended over the open pit and anchored on either side, and a dredge would move along the cable to scoop out the quarry. He said that there were no warning signs about the cable, because the only people allowed to be there were employees who were working on the dredging project and who, therefore, knew about it.

On March 3, 2023, the trial court dismissed Mr. Callahan’s complaint, reasoning that the quarry owners were immune from liability for his injuries, because he didn’t have consent to ride his dirt bike on their property. The court also denied his request to amend the complaint to bring allegations of willful and wanton misconduct, because doing so wouldn’t change the fact that he’d been trespassing when he was injured. Mr. Callahan appealed.

On May 20, 2024, the Appellate Division affirmed. It first observed that New Jersey has a statute, N.J.S.A. 39:3C-18, which specifically shields property owners from liability when someone injures themself while operating a dirk bike, snow mobile, ATV, or similar vehicle on an owner’s property without permission. However, there is an exception where a property owner has willfully and maliciously created the hazardous condition. Mr. Callahan argued that he should’ve been allowed to amend his complaint to include allegations that the quarry owners willfully and maliciously placed the cable over the path, because they’d known for decades that non-employees rode their dirt bikes around the quarry, but nevertheless created a hazardous condition by leaving the cable extended over a trail.

The Appellate Division rejected Mr. Callahan’s argument, however, finding that the quarry owners couldn’t have willfully or intentionally created the hazard, because the testimony during discovery showed that the cable had a legitimate business purpose, i.e., it had been extended over the quarry as part of a dredging project. Conduct is considered willful or malicious only if it is “done with the knowledge that injury is likely to, or probably will, result.” Because the evidence showed that the owners of the quarry hadn’t placed the cable to deter the presence of dirt-bike riders on their property, the trial judge was correct not to allow Mr. Callahan to amend his complaint.

As this case illustrates, a landowner is generally not liable for injuries suffered by a trespasser as a result of an encounter with a hazardous condition on the property. However, if a landowner intentionally creates a hazardous condition to ward off trespassers (a moat or junkyard dogs, for example), they may be liable for injuries caused to anyone injured by it.