Split State Supreme Court Says Landlords Have No Obligation to Cover Radiators
A plain reading of the state's Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law shows radiators are excluded from a list of items that must be insulated or covered to prevent burns, the court found.
July 31, 2019 at 05:54 PM
4 minute read
The New Jersey Supreme Court has declined, in a 5-2 ruling, to impose a duty on landlords to install protective covers over radiators in apartment buildings.
A plain reading of the state’s Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law shows radiators are excluded from a list of items that must be insulated or covered to prevent burns, the justices said in the majority opinion. The court also found no obligation under common law for the landlord to install a protective cover on the radiator, based on the fact that the tenants in the present case have access to a control valve that permits them to turn the heat on and off.
The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the family of a 9-month-old boy, J.H., who suffered permanent scars after touching a radiator while sleeping in an apartment in Jersey City. A trial judge granted summary judgment to the landlord, but the Appellate Division reversed that ruling, concluding under common law that the landlord owed a duty of care to J.H.
The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division ruling and reinstated the trial court’s award of summary judgment to the landlord, R&M Tagliareni.
J.H. suffered third-degree burns on his head, right cheek and left arm after sleeping in a bed with his ten-year-old stepsister that was next to a cast iron radiator. He was found on the floor with his head pressed against the hot radiator the next morning. His father, who placed him in the bed after he awoke in the night crying while sleeping in a car seat, pleaded guilty to a charge of fourth-degree child abuse or neglect.
J.H. and his guardian filed suit against the apartment building’s owners. After the trial judge granted summary judgment to the defendants, the Appellate Division ruled the plaintiff should be allowed to argue at trial that state law imposed a duty of care upon the landlord.
At the Supreme Court, Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina wrote for the court that the administrative code governing heating systems in apartment buildings does not require a guard or insulating material on radiators.
“Notably, although ‘heating system’ is not otherwise detailed, the list of what it includes—besides the unstated but obvious heating system itself—mentions only heating risers, ducts, and hot water lines. these consist solely of component parts integrally related to the heating source and its conveyance of heat to the individual dwelling unites subject to the statutory and regulatory scheme. Further the items listed are all of a kind—they are beyond the control of the end-user and are in the exclusive control of the landlord. Thus, the express, and plain, language of the regulation reveals the term ‘radiator’ was omitted from the regulation’s list,” Fernandez-Vina wrote. “We see no cause to attribute the notable absence of the term ‘radiator’ to anything other than the [Department of Community Affairs'] reasoned determination not to impose under this regulation any requirement that radiators be covered.”
Justices Jaynee LaVecchia, Anne Patterson, Lee Solomon and Walter Timpone joined in Fernandez-Vina’s ruling. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner’s dissent was joined by Justice Barry Albin.
Rabner, citing statistics showing large numbers of injuries from burns caused by radiators, said a jury should have reviewed whether the landlord’s common-law duty to guard against foreseeable hazards was breached. Rabner said the key factors in the analysis of the landlord’s duty were his control over the radiator’s temperature and the foreseeable risk of danger. His analysis concluded that a duty of reasonable care existed.
Danielle Hughes of Koster, Brady & Nagler in Red Bank, representing R&M Tagliareni, did not respond to a request for comment. John Molinari of Blume Forte Fried Zerres & Molinari in Chatham, who represented J.H. and his guardian also did not respond to requests for comment.
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 AllThe Real Estate Consumer Protection Enhancement Act Brings Industry Change
9 minute readTrending Stories
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