A lawyer representing a woman injured at a Christmas season country music event at Monmouth University asked the New Jersey Supreme Court on Thursday to reinstate his client's case, arguing that the university shouldn't be allowed to shield itself with charitable immunity since the accident occurred at a for-profit event.

The case hinges on whether the show should, in fact, be considered a “cultural” or “educational” event, in conformity with the school's charitable purpose.

Previously answering that question in the affirmative, both a trial judge and an Appellate Division majority said plaintiff Frances Green's lawsuit should be dismissed, citing the state's strong Charitable Immunity Act.

“Who decides what's not part of the educational mission” of a university? Green's lawyer, Stewart Leviss, argued before the court Thursday.

“This is not what the CIA was intended to protect,” Leviss told the court. “Immunity is not absolute.”

“Monmonth University's mission is not to provide a venue for commercial events,” added Leviss, of Roseland's Berkowitz, Lichstein, Kirutsky, Giasullo & Gross.

Several justices—led by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justice Jaynee LaVecchia—expressed concerns about who should be deciding  what is an “educational” or “cultural” event, and what is a money-making event in which the school merely takes a cut of ticket and ancillary product sales.

LaVecchia noted that a university such as Monmouth, while an educational institution, is not a “monastery.”

Leviss agreed, but added that this particular event fell far outside the scope of the university's charitable mission.

The university's lawyer, John Kaelin, asked the court to affirm the two lower courts.

There needs to be a broad interpretation of the CIA to ensure that the university's needs are met, said Kaelin, of the Mount Laurel office of Schwab, Haddix & Millman.

“Does it promote the educational intent” of the university? he said to the court.

Rabner asked whether a distinction should be drawn between an appearance by a world-renowned classical musician “and a big rock band.”

“You have to take a broad view,” Kaelin responded. “They all bring something to the table. They all have cultural relevance.”

The divided nature of the Appellate Division's ruling made the matter appealable as of right to the Supreme Court.

The Appellate Division majority, in its January 2018 decision affirming the court below, said that even though the university made money by hosting the concert—by country music star Martina McBride—it still was immune under the CIA, and the show was a “cultural and educational” experience.

“Indeed, providing concerts open to the public is one of the stated purposes of the university,” Appellate Division Judge George Leone wrote. He was joined by Judge Mitchel Ostrer.

The majority said the Legislature, in enacting the CIA, meant for it to be read liberally to offer immunity in as many cases as possible. “Although not a classical musician, McBride is an American country music performer,” Leone said. “Whether classical, country or Christmas, music is an art, and McBride is a musical artist.”

Appellate Division Judge Clarkson Fisher Jr. dissented, saying a for-profit concert did not serve the university's charitable purpose. “I see no educational purpose of endeavor here,” he said. “The university saw a way to generate income when its [Multipurpose Activity Center] was unused.”