Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg has promised legislation to ensure landlords safely cover dangerously hot and exposed radiators.

Weinberg's announcement comes on the heels of a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision holding that a landlord cannot be held responsible for the third-degree burns a 9-month-old infant suffered rolling from a bed onto a radiator.

In the court's split opinion, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner dissented and provided stats on injuries arising from exposed radiators, and encouraged the Legislature to take up the matter.

Weinberg, D-Bergen, said Thursday that she and her staff were drafting a bill to address the responsibility of landlords over their apartment building's heating system that she hoped to introduce when the Senate returns from summer recess.

"We will do everything we can to ensure scalding radiators are not left exposed to anyone, particularly children. New Jerseyans deserve safe, reliable housing and if Chief Justice Rabner believes, as I do, that legislation is needed to make their homes safer, then that is what we will do," Weinberg said.

The Supreme Court on July 31 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, said the majority opinion delivered by Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina and joined by Justices Jaynee LaVecchia, Anne Patterson, Lee Solomon and Walter Timpone. Therefore, landlords were not obligated to cover radiators.

The court said the tenants in the case involving the infant, identified only as J.H. in court documents, had control over the radiator's control valve to turn the heat on or off.

J.H. suffered permanent scarring when he was burned by an uncovered, free-standing cast iron loop radiator while he slept in the Jersey City apartment building where his family lived, in a bed with his 10-year-old stepsister. He was found on the floor with his head pressed against the hot radiator the next morning. J.H.'s 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, the court noted.

J.H. and his guardian filed suit against the apartment building's owners. A trial judge granted summary judgment to the landlord, R&M Tagliareni LLC and Robert & Maria Tagliareni II LLC, but the Appellate Division reversed, 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.

Fernandez-Vina wrote 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."

"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."

In his 35-page dissent, Rabner cited statistics showing large numbers of injuries from burns caused by radiators. He said a jury should have reviewed whether the landlord's common-law duty to guard against foreseeable hazards was breached.

"The public interest also favors the imposition of a duty of care," Rabner wrote. "As this court has explained, 'one of the main functions of tort law is to prevent accidents,' and 'one of the central rationales for imposing liability in tort law is to deter tortious behavior.'

"The imposition of a duty of care on landlords would serve that aim. It would help tenants against foreseeable and preventable dangers that arise from the ordinary and reasonable use of radiators," Rabner wrote. "That protection would naturally extend to the most vulnerable."

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.

"Finally, it is not unfair to impose a duty on landlords—who have control of a heating system and, in particular, of the temperature coursing through hot radiators—to exercise reasonable care to prevent radiator burns," Rabner wrote. "Whether a duty exists is ultimately a question of fairness."

In his closing, Rabner strongly urged the Legislature to take up the matter where the courts fell short.

"In the end, the Legislature has the final say in this case," Rabner said. "If a court imposes a duty of care and the Legislature disapproves of it, the Legislature can step in and override the ruling.

"Here, the majority finds no duty under the statute or the common law. The Legislature can override that conclusion as well. It is free to amend the Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law and require that protective covers be placed on hot radiators—to protect tenants, their families, and guests from serious injuries they will undoubtedly continue to suffer year after year."

Weinberg, considered among the most powerful political figures at the Statehouse, said she took Rabner's words to heart.

"I echo the sentiments of Chief Justice Rabner. This is a situation where the Legislature must step in," Weinberg said. "With over 15,000 radiator burns in the past decade, it is clear we cannot rely on the current laws or landlords to keep renters, their families or their children safe.

"This is a safety issue and I know I am not the only one in the Legislature keen on taking action since the Supreme Court's decision last month," Weinberg said.