NJ Appellate Division Limits Use of ADA Evidence in Non-ADA Premises Case
May 12, 2026 | Written by: | Share
In Bishop v. Public Storage, the New Jersey Appellate Division recently vacated a $2.5 million premises liability verdict and ordered a new trial after finding that the jury improperly heard repeated references to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and accessibility standards in a case where no ADA or accessibility claim had been pleaded.
The case arose from a fall at the entrance of a Public Storage facility. The plaintiff alleged that her foot became caught at the entryway, causing her to trip and sustain injuries. During opening statements, the plaintiff’s counsel showed the jury a photograph of the entrance after it had been remodeled with a ramp. The defense counsel immediately objected and moved for a mistrial, arguing that the photograph showed a subsequent remedial measure barred by N.J.R.E. 407. The trial court denied the motion and gave a curative instruction.
The accessibility issue continued to come up during trial. On cross-examination, the plaintiff’s counsel questioned the defendant’s engineering expert about ADA and other accessibility standards. The defense counsel objected on relevance grounds, but the questioning was permitted. Although the expert testified that the accessibility standards did not apply to the building, the plaintiff’s counsel elicited testimony that the entrance was not accessible, that it was the only route in and out, and that the defendant could have added a ramp or re-graded the entrance.
Before summation, the trial court expressly barred the plaintiff from discussing the ADA because it had not been pleaded and was not part of the case. The plaintiff nevertheless argued that defendant knew or should have known about accessibility-related code changes and should have made “simple fixes,” including installing a ramp.
The Appellate Division held that the repeated references to ADA and accessibility standards, combined with the ramp photograph, created a miscarriage of justice. The court explained that the relevant issues were whether the stairway was dangerous and whether the defendant had notice of that condition. Because the plaintiff did not plead an ADA or accessibility claim, whether the entrance complied with ADA was irrelevant under N.J.R.E. 401.
The Appellate Court further found that the jury could have wrongly concluded that the defendant violated accessibility laws and treated those supposed violations as evidence of negligence. The ramp photograph compounded the prejudice because the same ramp later became the “simple fix” theme in cross-examination and summation. The court held that the curative instruction was insufficient because the accessibility/ramp theme permeated the trial.
This decision is significant because it recognizes that not every safety-related standard belongs in every premises liability case. In Bishop, the Appellate Division made clear that when ADA and accessibility issues are not pleaded, they should not become the framework for deciding an ordinary trip-and-fall claim.
In premises liability matters, knowing what evidence belongs before a jury and what evidence does not, can make a meaningful difference. The litigation team at Gebhardt & Kiefer, P.C. helps clients navigate those issues with a practical understanding of the facts, the rules of evidence, and recent developments in New Jersey case law.
Benjamin V. Klein, Esq., is an associate with Gebhardt & Kiefer, P.C., and concentrates his practice on employment law, civil rights litigation, and general litigation.
If you have a suggestion for a future blog topic, please feel free to submit it via the Contact Us form.
Any statements made herein are solely for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.