Expanding Sidewalk Law Liability: Judicial Prerogative or Legislative Priority?
The dissent argues that expansion of the "Stewart/Abraham" "legal principle" should rest solely with the Legislature.
July 05, 2024 at 11:02 AM
6 minute read
Premises LiabilityThere was a time, although that time was more than 40 years ago and stretched back more than a century, that our courts adhered to the English common-law rule that government bore primary responsibility for the maintenance of sidewalks and the abutting owner of commercial or residential property was not liable for any condition of the sidewalk caused by action of the elements or by wear and tear incident to public use. Liability in New Jersey attached only for negligent construction or repair of the sidewalk or obstruction of the sidewalk by the owner in such a manner as to render it unsafe for passersby. Over the course of time, New Jersey Supreme Court justices in a dissent or concurrence would comment on the "gross injustice" of immunizing wrongdoers whose flagrant neglect of duty caused injury to innocent parties. But those voices, including that of Justice Morris Pashman, were ineffective in changing the "no liability" rule.
In 1970, the Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. 40:65-14, which empowered municipalities to require landowners to make repairs to and maintain abutting sidewalks. It also empowered municipalities to make the repairs and perform the necessary maintenance when landowners had failed to do so, but that enactment did not provide a liability remedy to passersby who had fallen on a sidewalk in disrepair or in need of maintenance.
Then in 1981 the Supreme Court, in Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, 87 N.J. 146, held, in an opinion by the same Justice Pashman, that "commercial landowners are responsible for maintaining in reasonably good condition the sidewalks abutting their property and are liable to pedestrians injured as a result of their negligent failure to do so."
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 AllCollapsed Floor Results in $1.5M Settlement for Injured Woman
Trending Stories
- 1Construction Worker Hit By Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
- 2Phila. Jury Hits Sig Sauer With $11M Verdict Over Alleged Gun Defect
- 3Lost in the Legal Maze: How State Regulations Are Hindering Hemp Operators' Success
- 4New Associates Yearbook 2024
- 5Disbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
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