|
ROMINGER
LEGAL
|
||||||||||
|
New Jersey Court Cases and Opinions -
NJ Legal Research
|
||||||||||
| Need Legal Help? | ||||||||||
|
NOT
FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH
|
||||||||||
This
court case was taken from the web sites of the NJ Courts. Search
our site for more cases - CLICK
HERE |
|
|
Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw. Original MSWord Version This case can also be found at 175 N.J. 449, 815 A.2d 960.
SYLLABUS
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has
been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the
reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please
note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not
have been summarized). (NOTE: This Court wrote no full opinion in this case. Rather, the Courts affirmance of the judgment of the Appellate Division is based substantially on the reasons expressed in Judge Newmans opinion below.)
Argued January 21, 2003 -- Decided February 24, 2003
On October 27, 1997, plaintiff fell while walking along the uneven public sidewalk
bordering the churchs property located at Third Street in Clifton. The uneven condition
of the sidewalk resulted from its upheaval caused by the roots of a
tree located between the curb and the sidewalk.
Through discovery it was disclosed that the church was a non-profit corporation created
solely for religious and charitable purposes, and that it did not rent its
real property or use that property for any commercial purposes. The parties also
discovered that the church constructed the sidewalk forty years before plaintiff's fall and
that it had a portion of the sidewalk repaired eight or ten years
before plaintiff's fall. Plaintiff's consulting engineer explained that movement of pavement slabs is
a common occurrence that can be caused by tree roots growing under the
sidewalk.
The trial court granted the church's motion for summary judgment, finding that a
landowner using his property exclusively for charitable or religious purposes is not liable
for injuries sustained by a pedestrian on the abutting sidewalk unless the property
is used for commercial activities.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, holding that
the church, as a noncommercial landowner, did not owe plaintiff a duty to
maintain the sidewalk.
351 N.J. Super. 237 (App. Div. 2002). The Appellate Division
explained that, absent negligent construction or repair, a landowner does not generally owe
a duty of care to a pedestrian injured as a result of the
condition of the sidewalk abutting the landowner's property. The court noted, however, that
the Supreme Court of New Jersey has carved out an exception to this
rule with respect to sidewalks abutting a commercial landowner's property. The objective in
creating the commercial property exception to the no-liability rule was to impose liability
on the party in a better position to bear the costs associated with
that imposition. In determining abutting sidewalk liability, therefore, courts focus on whether a
property is commercial or residential. Ordinarily, to determine whether a property is commercial
or residential, courts examine the nature of ownership of the property, for example,
whether the property is owned for investment or business purposes. If the property
is owned by a religious, charitable or other nonprofit organization, courts look to
the nature of the use of the property and not the nature of
the ownership.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 10 September Term 2002 ISA DUPREE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Defendant,
and
THE NETHERLANDS REFORMED CHURCH,
Defendant-Respondent.
Mitchell J. Makowicz, Jr., argued the cause for appellant (Blume, Goldfaden, Berkowitz, Donnelly,
Fried & Forte, attorneys).
Barry A. Knopf argued the cause for respondent (Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann &
Knopf, attorneys; Mr. Knopf and Albert L. Cohn, of counsel; Audra DePaolo, on
the brief).
PER CURIAM SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-10 SEPTEMBER TERM 2002 ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court
ISA DUPREE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE CITY OF CLIFTON,
Defendant,
And
THE NETHERLANDS REFORMED
Defendant-Respondent.
DECIDED February 24, 2003
This archive is a service of Rominger Legal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
NOW - CASE
LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try
it for FREE
We
now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!
Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board
TERMS
OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES
Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2009.
A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.