Owners of vacant commercial lots have a duty to maintain public sidewalks abutting their properties and are liable for pedestrians injured as a result of their failure to do so, according to a recent ruling from the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The ruling reverses an appellate court opinion, as well as overrules previous state case law indicating that while owners of commercial properties can be liable to pedestrians, owners of vacant lots are not.
In a June 13 majority opinion in Padilla v Young II, Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis added that sidewalk liability law in the state has always been viewed with an eye toward “fairness.”
“Considerations of fairness lead us to conclude that a duty should be imposed on owners of vacant commercial lots. Accordingly, we hold that all commercial landowners — including owners of vacant commercial lots — have a duty to maintain the public sidewalks abutting their property in reasonably good condition and are liable to pedestrians injured as a result of their negligent failure to do so,” said the justice, adding, “There is something profoundly unfair about commercial property owners purchasing vacant lots and having no responsibility whatsoever for maintaining the area where the general public traverses.”
Previously, liability was only imposed on property owners in the case of negligent construction or repair of sidewalks rather than upkeep for wear and tear, which was the responsibility of municipal governments. Vacant-lot owners were viewed as not liable since the lots did not generate income.
Insurance considerations
In this case, plaintiff Alejandra Padilla tripped and fell on a sidewalk in front of a vacant lot in Camden, NJ, in September 2019, suffering serious injuries requiring surgery. She filed a complaint against the owners, who bought the land in 1992 but never built anything on that or an adjacent lot they owned.
The property owners also did not carry liability insurance, having found that insurers “didn’t really want to insure it,” according to court documents.
Some of the reasoning for previous case law, first addressed in the 1981 case of Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, Inc., had been that owners of a profitable commercial property could absorb the costs of liability insurance in the event of injuries to passersby.
The high Court suggested tying liability to the potential profit of a piece of land would lead to “inconsistent” and “unworkable” results.
The justice added, “An individual purchasing commercial land to make money has already decided to enter a business venture, so it is not unreasonable or unfair for such an individual to have to factor liability insurance into the cost of embarking on the journey of their commercial endeavor.”
The justice added, “The bright-line rule we articulate today — that all commercial property owners owe a duty to maintain abutting sidewalks in reasonably good condition — will ensure fairness, consistency, and predictability in our courts going forward.”
Four justices sided with the majority, while three dissented, arguing against “placing the burden on a commercial property owner who has no means to address the resulting costs.”
In a dissent penned by Justice Solomon, the dissenters urged the New Jersey Legislature to examine and clarify the issue, stating, “The majority’s expansion of liability in this setting expropriates a decision that this Court in Stewart correctly stated rests with the Legislature elected by the citizens of New Jersey to set policy.”