In Shields v. Ramslee Motors, the state Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and ruled that a commercial tenant has sole responsibility for the slip-and-fall injuries sustained by a Federal Express driver who fell on the snow-covered premises of a car dealership.

In a majority opinion, the court found lessee Ramslee Motors fully liable for driver Balwin Shields' injuries, and it had the duty to clear snow and ice since it assumed possession and control of the property as a commercial tenant from the landlord, identified in court documents as 608 Tonnelle Avenue LLC.

"The issue before us is whether New Jersey law imposes a non-delegable duty on commercial landlords to maintain the demised premises free of snow and ice," said Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina, who delivered the majority opinion Thursday.

Fernandez-Vina said the nondelegable duty to remove snow and ice from a sidewalk does not apply here.

"In fairness, the entity with control over the property is the entity that should be held responsible. We decline to hold the landlord responsible for property over which it had relinquished control," Fernandez-Vina wrote in the 18-page opinion. "In short, we find the undisputed evidence in the record shows that the landlord did not enjoy the sort of control over the subject driveway that would give rise to a duty of care."

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Jaynee LaVecchia, Anne Patterson, Lee Solomon and Walter Timpone joined in the opinion. Justice Barry Albin concurred with the majority and dissented in part, filing a separate eight-page opinion.

"The lease agreement between Ramslee Motors and the landlord directly addressed the issue of responsibility for maintenance of the property, which includes removal of snow and ice as the de facto owner," Fernandez-Vina wrote. "Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and reinstate the trial court's grant of summary judgment."

Michael Savett of Clark & Fox in Cherry Hill represented 608 Tonnelle Avenue. Savett was not available for comment.

Kristian Krause of Goldstein, Ballen, O'Rourke & Wildstein in Passaic argued for Shields. Krause was also not available to comment.

Ronald Grayzel of Levinson Axelrod in Edison submitted a brief on behalf of the New Jersey Association of Justice, an amicus supporting Shields' position and arguing that the factors in Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 439 (1993), dictating that the duty of care fall to the landlord, applied to this case.

According to the court's decision, on Feb. 6, 2014, Shields reported falling on ice after delivering a letter at 608 Tonnelle Ave. in Jersey City, which was a car dealership lot operated by Ramslee Motors.

A lease between the two parties specified: "Tenant shall maintain the leased premises and building, structures, fixtures and improvements now or hereafter located thereon or in or on the easements in compliance with all laws and requirements," according to the decision. The lease reserved the right of the landlord to enter the premises to make inspections and repairs, and during emergencies.

Granting 608 Tonnelle's summary judgment motion, the trial court found Ramslee Motors responsible for lot maintenance, and the duty to clear snow and ice delegable. The court rejected public policy arguments because Shields could recover from Ramslee.

Reversing, the Appellate Division held that the lease was silent on who was responsible for snow and ice removal, ruling that "the landlord owed the same non-delegable duty to maintain the driveway" and make sure it was free of snow and ice just like the sidewalks adjacent to it. The panel found no distinction between the two areas that were separated only by a fence.

608 Tonnelle petitioned the Supreme Court, and the case was argued Oct. 7, 2019, before the justices.

"We disagree with those determinations," Fernandez-Vina wrote on the Appellate Division's holding.

Fernandez-Vina said the lease provision through which the landlord retained the right to enter the property without notice for the purpose of making repairs does not change that allocation of responsibility.

"The court reviews the genesis and development of the duty to clear sidewalks and notes that it was declared a non-delegable duty in Vasquez v. Mansol Realty Associates" from 1995, Fernandez-Vina said.

"The Appellate Division determined that Vasquez governs here, reasoning that the driveway was not distinct from the sidewalk and that the same non-delegable duty should therefore apply, The court does not agree."

"The duty to maintain the driveway was never the government's—it was always a private duty, with the potential of private recovery; the logic that led to the imposition of the duty vis-à-vis sidewalks does not apply to private property," Fernandez-Vina wrote.

In his concurring opinion, Albin disagreed on fully absolving the landlord of making reasonable efforts to repair a dangerous condition to a property if that condition put people's safety at risk.

"A landlord that retains sufficient control over its property to make safety repairs should not be able to extinguish its common law duty to exercise reasonable care to guard against foreseeable dangers," Albin wrote. "That is because a landlord's duty to exercise reasonable care is a question of law that a court decides." But Albin conceded that "given the transient condition of the ice and snow in the dealer's driveway, the landlord had no practical way of knowing" that Ramslee Motors wouldn't clear the driveway.

Fernandez-Vina said the four test factors in considering control in this case, known as the "Hopkins factors," applied: the relationship of the parties, the nature of the attendant risk, the opportunity and ability to exercise care, and the public interest in the proposed solution.

Fernandez-Vina said the landlord had no relationship with Shields; it wasn't fair to "place the responsibility of removing snow and ice on a landlord who lacks control over the property"; it was "impractical to require the same landlord to prevent the harm accompanying temporarily slippery conditions" caused by bad weather; and finally, holding the landlord liable for the property's snow and ice "would not serve any public policy interest" since Shields had other ways to recover damages.

"In short, an analysis of the Hopkins factors against the factual backdrop of this case leads to the conclusion that fairness precludes the landlord's liability for plaintiff's injuries," Fernandez-Vina wrote.

"In sum, there is no ambiguity in the lease regarding the responsibility for snow and ice removal. That responsibility falls on the tenant."