The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the landlord of an apartment building had a duty to protect an infant from rolling into a scalding hot radiator, causing extensive and permanent burns and scarring over the child's body.

The court, in an order posted Oct. 9, granted the landlord's petition for certification, following the Appellate Division's reinstatement of the lawsuit earlier this year. The panel, finding that the issue should be settled by a jury, reversed a trial judge's summary judgment dismissal.

The incident occurred in 2010, when the infant, identified only as “Jimmy,” was 9 months old, according to the Appellate Division's March 2018 published decision.

Jimmy was living in an apartment operated by Robert and Maria Tagliareni, who ran a management company called R&M Tagliareni.

Jimmy had been asleep in a car seat but awoke, so his father put him into a bed with the child's 10-year-old sister. The father, according to court records, took efforts to swaddle Jimmy in blankets so he would not move around while asleep.

However, at some point, Jimmy managed to roll over, and his body came into contact with the uncovered radiator. He sustained third-degree burns over his head, right cheek and left arm, resulting in permanent scarring, the suit claimed.

The child's parents filed a lawsuit against the Tagliarenis, alleging negligence. As part of discovery, the plaintiffs noted that controls over the radiator were located in a locked room in the basement of the apartment building that was not accessible to the tenants.

A trial judge dismissed the case on summary judgment, saying the defendants had no control over the individual radiator and that they had no duty to provide a protective covering for the heater.

The plaintiffs appealed, and in the unanimous Appellate Division ruling, the panel reversed and reinstated the claim.

“We disagree with these legal conclusions,” Judge Thomas Sumners Jr. wrote for the panel. Judges Clarkson Fisher Jr. and Scott Moynihan joined in the ruling.

“It is well-settled that a landlord has a common law duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition to guard against foreseeable dangers arising from the use of the premises,” Sumners said.

“Hence, a landlord's duty arises when foreseeable harm exists that falls within the landlord's control,” he said. “There is nothing in the record to suggest that it was unreasonably burdensome for defendants to cover the radiator.”

The plaintiffs' attorney, John Molinari, said he was disappointed the court decided to hear the Tagliarenis' appeal.

“It's clearly disappointing that the court accepted certification on a 3-0 published ruling,” said Molinari, of Chatham's Blume Forte Fried Zerres & Molinari.

The Tagliarenis' attorney, Danielle Hughes of the  Red Bank office of Koster, Brady & Nagler, didn't return a call seeking comment.