The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled in a 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 due to negligent failure to do so. The New Jersey Civil Justice Institute (NJCJI) appeared as amicus curiae in support of the defendant landowners.
In this case, the defendants owned a vacant lot in Camden, New Jersey. The lot was devoid of any structures and was not used for 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 this order. The Appellate Division observed that while owners of commercial properties generally have a duty to maintain public sidewalks abutting 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 the majority of the Court, Justice Pierre-Louis noted that since 1981, New Jersey courts have consistently expanded liability for deteriorating public sidewalks to adjacent property owners. She highlighted that previous cases imputed liability to commercial property owners because they benefited from those sidewalks and could defray maintenance costs through their commercial activities. However, she observed that Appellate Division cases limited liability where commercial property lacked income-generating capacity, specifically for vacant properties.
Justice Pierre-Louis emphasized that ensuring pedestrians enjoyed “safe and unimpeded passage along . . . sidewalk[s]” was paramount. Consequently, the Court overturned prior decisions limiting 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 rule by stating it would simplify the law, protect the general public, and ensure consistency in litigation. Nevertheless, they requested that the Legislature reexamine this issue to find a better solution.
In his dissent joined by Justices Patterson and Wainer-Apter, Justice Solomon argued that the majority overstepped by broadly expanding commercial sidewalk liability—a role he believed belonged to the Legislature. He contended prior decisions from New Jersey courts had consistently limited such liability where properties lacked income-generating capacity. Furthermore, he rejected claims that the majority’s rule advanced fairness or avoided legal inconsistency. Like the majority, Justice Solomon called upon the Legislature to develop a fair policy concerning commercial landowners' responsibility for public sidewalks.
Justice Pierre-Louis drafted the majority decision with Chief Justice Rabner and Justices Noriega and Fasciale joining her opinion. Justice Solomon authored the dissent with Justices Patterson and Wainer-Apter concurring.
Alex Daniel represented NJCJI as counsel, drafting their amicus brief and participating in oral arguments.
