Monmouth University was fulfilling its educational purpose in holding a concert for country star Martina McBride, and a woman who injured herself at the concert was a beneficiary of the event, thus preserving the school's nonprofit status and nonliability under the Charitable Immunity Act, according to the Supreme Court.

The ruling Tuesday affirmed a trial judge and an Appellate Division majority on the matter involving plaintiff Frances Green of Long Branch, who sued the university over injuries she sustained at the concert in the school's Multipurpose Activity Center (MAC) on Dec. 9, 2012. Green was not a student at the university at the time.

Both lower courts cited the state's strong Charitable Immunity Act in favor of Monmouth University.

“Upon review, we agree with the Appellate Division that Monmouth University's decision to host a musical concert open to the public—an activity explicitly provided for under the 'purposes' section of the University's certificate of incorporation—served its educational goal,” wrote Justice Faustino J. Fernandez-Vina, who delivered the opinion for the court. “We also agree with the majority that, although Green was not a Monmouth University student, she was a beneficiary of its educational purpose under the language of the Charitable Immunity Act when she was injured.

“Monmouth University is therefore immune from Green's claims, and we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division,” Fernandez-Vina wrote.

The case was argued before the court on Jan. 3. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Jaynee LaVecchia, Anne M. Patterson, Lee Solomon and Walter F. Timpone joined in the opinion. Justice Barry T. Albin did not participate.

Green brought suit against Monmouth University for injuries she allegedly sustained while attending the Martina McBride concert that was on university property but open to the public. In addition to Monmouth University, Press Communications  LLC, d/b/a Thunder 106, and AEG Worldwide were also named as defendants.

According to court documents, each attendee paid $3 for a ticket, the proceeds from which were evenly split between the university and Thoroughbred Management Inc., a for-profit corporation. The school and TMI had entered into an agreement that allowed TMI to use the university's MAC for the McBride concert after paying a $10,000 rental fee.

In the appeal, the court considered whether the university is immune from Green's suit pursuant to the Charitable Immunity Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7 to -11.

Stewart M. Leviss of Berkowitz, Lichtstein, Kuritsky, Giasullo & Gross in Roseland argued the case on behalf of Green.

“The decision, ultimately, wasn't surprising given the questioning and argument,” Leviss said on Tuesday by phone. “However the Supreme Court reaffirmed that charitable immunity is not without limits, and so I will continue to represent injured people like Francis Green and seek to hold accountable those who are responsible and test the limitations of charitable immunity and other statutory immunities.”

John N. Kaelin III of the Mount Laurel office of Schwab, Haddix and Millman, who argued the cause for Monmouth University, said he had no comment.

Eric G. Kahn of Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins in Springfield argued the cause for the New Jersey Association for Justice, of which he is the immediate past president. The NJAJ was an amicus in the case.

Kahn said the ruling was disappointing for anyone claiming injury at certain institutions.

“I think the [Charitable Immunity Act] is, in general, archaic and unfair, and the Legislature should take a look at the law,” Kahn said on the ruling. “In this case, I think the Court misapplied the law because there was no educational purpose being served by this concert. It was clearly a moneymaking event for the university.”

In its ruling, the court disagreed and said that whether the university made a profit was of no issue.

“The Court's decision is not at all based on whether the university here made a profit or lost money on the Martina McBride concert,” Fernandez-Vina said. “The Legislature could have set up the Charitable Immunity Act to turn on such issues, but it did not.”

The court said Monmouth University is a nonprofit educational institution, and in its certificate of incorporation, the university states that its “purposes” include providing “for the holding of meetings and events open to the public, including classes, conferences, lectures, forums, exhibitions, athletic contests, etc., either directly or indirectly, to advance the cause of education and wholesome recreation.”

According to the vice president of student life at Monmouth University, the intent of the $3 fee was to cover setup and clean-up costs, police costs and fire safety, among other direct costs, during and after the Christmas season McBride concert.

According to documents, while attending the concert, plaintiff Green was climbing a set of stairs in an area that she alleges was poorly lit. As she stepped onto what appeared to be a solid surface, her foot slipped down to the step below, causing her to fall forward, she claims.

Green said in court testimony that her face struck the back of a seat in one of the rows next to the stairs and that she confided in a university police officer, who had walked to where Green fell and observed a rubber strip sticking out from the step.

Monmouth County Superior Court Judge Katie Gummer granted summary judgment in favor of the university and determined that the McBride concert fell squarely within the university's stated purposes of providing educational events.

Gummer also concluded that charitable immunity under the CIA applied against Green's claims because even though she was not a university student, she was a beneficiary of its educational purpose when she attended the concert.

Green appealed, and, in a split decision, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's ruling. In its January 2018 decision the court's majority said that, even though the university made money by hosting the concert, 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.”

Dissenting Judge Clarkson Fisher Jr. determined immunity under the CIA to be inappropriate in light of the income the university derived from the concert and the disputed question of whether McBride's concert was an “artistic performance” that served the school's educational goals.

Given the Appellate Division split, the case was appealable as of right to the Supreme Court.

“The concert was promoting the university's educational objectives and purposes at the time of Green's injury, and as a result, Monmouth University is afforded charitable immunity,” Fernandez-Vina wrote Tuesday. “Although Green was not a Monmouth University student, she was a beneficiary under the language of the Charitable Immunity Act.

“The Legislature prescribed that the Charitable Immunity Act 'shall be deemed to be remedial and shall be liberally construed so as to afford immunity to nonprofit entities organized for religious, charitable, educational or hospital purposes.'”

Similar to the appellate panel, the court said there was no disputing that Monmouth University, located in West Long Branch, satisfied two of three factors in qualifying for charitable immunity: It was formed for nonprofit purposes and is organized exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes.

At dispute was the third prong: whether the school was promoting such objectives and purposes at the time of the injury to Green who was then a beneficiary of the charitable works.

The court said the third prong of the charitable immunity test involves two inquiries: whether the organization pleading the immunity, at the time in question, was engaged in the performance of the objectives it was organized to advance; and whether the injured party was a direct recipient of those good works.

Wrote the court: “Although some nonprofits provide a wide range of services beyond their core purpose, such activities do not eviscerate their entitlement to immunity as long as the services or activities further the charitable objectives the entities were organized to advance.”

It cited a 2001 case in which the Appellate Division held that Princeton University was “entitled to immunity from a claim arising out of the rental of an auditorium to another non-profit entity that used the facility for … educational purposes,” Lax v. Princeton Univ.

In Lax, the Appellate Division stated that the Princeton Chamber Symphony was a nonprofit corporation that rented an auditorium from Princeton University, also a nonprofit corporation, for approximately $5,000 per concert. The plaintiff in Lax, who was not a Princeton student, purchased a ticket and attended a symphony concert, where the plaintiff fell. The panel found that the plaintiff's subsequent tort claims were barred by charitable immunity as to both the orchestra and the university.

Fernandez-Vina said the Lax court reflected the liberal construction the Legislature prescribed for the Charitable Immunity Act, and that institutions have broad leeway in deciding what services they offer that they consider to be educational in nature. Those services can include presenting concerts open to the public to advance the cause of education.

“At the outset, we repeat that the Charitable Immunity Act is to be liberally construed and that the phrase, 'educational purpose' has been interpreted broadly,” the court said. “Applying these legal principles to the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that the majority of the Appellate Division panel was correct in its determination.”

The court's opinion said “courts should not be in the business of deciding what music constitutes 'educational' music and what does not.”

“Furthermore, the Court agrees with the majority that Monmouth University's decision to rent out the MAC to host the Martina McBride concert did not result in the loss of the university's charitable immunity,” Fernandez-Vina wrote.

“If hiring third-party professionals triggers the loss of an entity's immunity status, non-profits in turn will be dissuaded from presenting religious, charitable, or educational events, which is contrary to the Legislature's intent,” he wrote.