Property Owners Beware – Court Confirms Sidewalks Maintenance Obligation
Recently the Supreme Court of New Jersey (SCNJ) handed down a decision that will have an impact on all commercial landowners, and potentially a number of NJGCA members.
In a 4-3 decision, the Court ruled in Padilla v. Young that commercial landowners have a duty to maintain sidewalks adjacent to their properties; including owners of vacant commercial lots.
As background, the case stems from a vacant commercial lot in Camden. The injured plaintiff fell on the sidewalk adjacent to the property, and filed a suit against the property owner for failing to maintain the sidewalk.
It should be mentioned that the landowner’s lot was vacant, there was no commercial activity, and there were no buildings or structures on the lot. Meaning there was no sustained or ongoing commercial activity taking place on the property itself.
During the litigation, a trial court granted the defendant-landowner’s motion for summary judgment. Ordinarily, and from a practical perspective, when a defendant wins a motion for summary judgment, the case is typically over.
In this instance, granting the defendant-landowner’s motion meant that the property owner had “won” the lawsuit. The plaintiff appealed the decision, and the Appellate Division would ultimately affirm the trial court's order.
The Appellate Division noted that commercial property owners typically have a duty to maintain public sidewalks around their property, but this is not true for landowners of vacant properties.
The Appellate Division’s ruling was then appealed further to the Supreme Court of NJ, and in a 4-3 decision, the Court ruled that the duty of commercial property owners to maintain sidewalks adjacent to their properties will now extend even to commercial landowners with vacant properties (that is “all commercial landowners[…]must maintain public sidewalks abutting their property.”)
To understand the evolution of this decision, prior cases had expanded the liability to maintain adjacent public sidewalks to “occupied” (or “currently in use”) commercial landowners. The rationale was that the commercial activity on occupied properties would generate funds to defray the cost of maintaining them. However, this duty did not extend to vacant commercial properties, since they did not generate any revenue that could be used to maintain the abutting public sidewalks.
In reaching this decision, the SCNJ has confirmed that pedestrian safety and legal uniformity are of higher importance than the particular use or (in)activity on a commercial parcel.
In their dissent, the minority maintains that the four Justices in the majority have essentially usurped the power of the Legislature, and any policy changes should be attributed solely to the elected branches of government. Ironically, and perhaps somewhat contradictory, the majority opinion also invites the Legislature to look at the issue of commercial sidewalk liability and investigate a better solution.
Whether one agrees with the ruling or is frustrated by the outcome, members should adhere to the obligations outlined in this new caselaw. While this changes nothing for landowners with active, occupied commercial property, it does create an affirmative liability and commitment on any member who owns vacant property to maintain the abutting sidewalks.
For anyone in that latter camp, it would be wise to revisit your vacant parcels, investigate the condition of the sidewalks to reduce the risk of pedestrian injuries, and reduce the potential exposure to a plaintiff filing suit against you.
If you have any questions on Padilla v. Young or the outcome, please feel free to reach out to Nick at nick@njgca.org
.jpg)
