The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled in a hotly contested 4-3 decision that all commercial landowners—including owners of vacant commercial lots—have a duty to maintain public sidewalks abutting their properties and are therefore liable to pedestrians injured as a result of the negligent failure to do so. NJCJI appeared as amicus curiae in support of the defendant landowners in this matter.

Here, the defendants owned a vacant lot in Camden, New Jersey. The lot was devoid of any structures and was not used in connection with any commercial activity. The plaintiff fell and injured herself on the public sidewalk abutting the defendants’ property and filed suit alleging that the defendants failed to maintain the sidewalk. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order. The Appellate Division observed that while owners of commercial properties generally have a duty to maintain public sidewalks that abut their properties, this was not true for owners of vacant properties, which generate no economic activity and derive no benefit from public sidewalks.

Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Pierre-Louis found that since 1981, New Jersey courts have consistently expanded liability for deteriorating public sidewalks to adjacent property owners. She noted that, in prior cases, the Court imputed liability for deteriorating public sidewalks to commercial property owners on the basis that they benefited from those sidewalks and could defray the cost of maintaining those sidewalks through their commercial activity. She observed that a line of Appellate Division cases limited liability where commercial property lacked the capacity to generate income, specifically for vacant properties.

Justice Pierre-Louis found, however, that the paramount concern of the Court was always to ensure that pedestrians enjoyed “safe and unimpeded passage along . . . sidewalk[s].” As such, the Court overturned prior decisions that limited sidewalk liability in cases involving vacant commercial properties and held that “all commercial landowners . . . must maintain public sidewalks abutting their property.” The majority justified this new bright-line rule on the basis that it would simplify the law, protect the general public, and ensure consistency in litigation. Nevertheless, the majority requested that the Legislature reexamine the issue of commercial sidewalk liability to ensure a better solution.

In his dissent, which was joined by Justices Patterson and Wainer-Apter, Justice Solomon maintained that the majority supplanted the role of the Legislature by broadly expanding commercial sidewalk liability. Examining prior cases, Justice Solomon argued that prior, well-reasoned and consistent decisions from New Jersey courts limited commercial landowner liability where properties lacked the capacity to generate income. Moreover, Justice Solomon rejected the view that the majority’s bright-line rule advanced fairness or was necessary to avoid inconsistency in the law. Like the majority, Justice Solomon called upon the Legislature to reexamine the question of commercial sidewalk liability and develop a fair, coherent policy concerning commercial landowners’ responsibility for public sidewalks.

Justice Pierre-Louis drafted the majority decision, which was joined by Chief Justice Rabner, and Justices Noriega and Fasciale. Justice Solomon drafted the dissent, which was joined by Justices Patterson and Waiver-Apter. Alex Daniel, counsel for NJCJI, drafted NJCJI’s amicus brief and participated in oral argument in this matter. NJCJI’s amicus brief can be found here. A link to Daniel’s oral argument can be found here. A copy of the Court’s majority and dissenting opinions can be found here.