Justices Mull Reach of Charitable Immunity in Monmouth University Concert Injury
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.
January 04, 2019 at 10:41 AM
4 minute read
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.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOn the Move and After Hours: Javerbaum Wurgaft; Sills Cummis; Spiro Harrison; CSG Law
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250