SYLLABUS
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has
been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the
reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please
note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not
have been summarized).
Argued January 21, 2003 -- Decided February 24, 2003
PER CURIAM
This appeal considers whether the plaintiff can maintain a cause of action against
defendant Netherlands Reformed Church (church) for injuries resulting from a fall on the
sidewalk abutting the churchs property.
On October 27, 1997, plaintiff fell while walking along the uneven public sidewalk
bordering the churchs property located at Third Street in Clifton. The uneven condition
of the sidewalk resulted from its upheaval caused by the roots of a
tree located between the curb and the sidewalk.
Through discovery it was disclosed that the church was a non-profit corporation created
solely for religious and charitable purposes, and that it did not rent its
real property or use that property for any commercial purposes. The parties also
discovered that the church constructed the sidewalk forty years before plaintiff's fall and
that it had a portion of the sidewalk repaired eight or ten years
before plaintiff's fall. Plaintiff's consulting engineer explained that movement of pavement slabs is
a common occurrence that can be caused by tree roots growing under the
sidewalk.
The trial court granted the church's motion for summary judgment, finding that a
landowner using his property exclusively for charitable or religious purposes is not liable
for injuries sustained by a pedestrian on the abutting sidewalk unless the property
is used for commercial activities.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, holding that
the church, as a noncommercial landowner, did not owe plaintiff a duty to
maintain the sidewalk.
351 N.J. Super. 237 (App. Div. 2002). The Appellate Division
explained that, absent negligent construction or repair, a landowner does not generally owe
a duty of care to a pedestrian injured as a result of the
condition of the sidewalk abutting the landowner's property. The court noted, however, that
the Supreme Court of New Jersey has carved out an exception to this
rule with respect to sidewalks abutting a commercial landowner's property. The objective in
creating the commercial property exception to the no-liability rule was to impose liability
on the party in a better position to bear the costs associated with
that imposition. In determining abutting sidewalk liability, therefore, courts focus on whether a
property is commercial or residential. Ordinarily, to determine whether a property is commercial
or residential, courts examine the nature of ownership of the property, for example,
whether the property is owned for investment or business purposes. If the property
is owned by a religious, charitable or other nonprofit organization, courts look to
the nature of the use of the property and not the nature of
the ownership.
In determining whether the church property at issue in this matter was used
for commercial purposes, the Appellate Division considered prior case law. In Lombardi v.
First United Methodist Church,
200 N.J. Super. 646 (App. Div.), certif. denied,
101 N.J. 315 (1985), the Appellate Division addressed whether property used by a church
exclusively for religious purposes constituted a commercial use. It held that when a
church uses its property solely for religious purposes, that use does not constitute
a commercial use. Next, in Christmas v. City of Newark,
216 N.J. Super. 393 (App. Div.), certif. denied,
108 N.J. 193 (1987), the court considered a
cause of action by a plaintiff injured on a sidewalk abutting church-owned property
that was leased to a donut shop. The court determined that the church
trustees used the property for commercial purposes and held that the church was
liable for the condition of the sidewalk. In Brown v. St. Venantius School,
111 N.J. 325 (1988), the Supreme Court held that a church operating a
private school was a commercial landowner for purposes of determining its duty to
remove snow and ice from an abutting sidewalk. Similarly, in Restivo v. Church
of Saint Joseph of the Palisades,
306 N.J. Super. 456, certif. denied,
153 N.J. 402 (1998), the church's property was leased in part to the North
Hudson Community Action Corporation and the buildings consisted primarily of apartments that the
church leased as a form of social charity under fair market value or
for no rent at all. A Head Start preschool also operated in a
portion of the leased premises. The Appellate Division determined that the church's use
of its property for rental units constituted a commercial use, regardless of the
amount of rent it charged, and that the preschool amounted to a commercial
use even though North Hudson did not charge tuition.
After considering these cases, among others, the Appellate Division determined that the Supreme
Court in Brown impliedly adopted a rule derived from the Lombardi and Christmas
cases; namely, where property abutting the offending sidewalk is owned by religious or
other nonprofit organizations, courts are directed to focus on the use of that
property to determine whether to impose liability. If the use is exclusively religious,
e.g., if the organization uses the property solely as a parish or rectory,
then the organization will not be considered a commercial landowner and liability will
not be imposed. If the organization's use of the property is partially or
completely commercial, e.g., if the property is used as a parish and for
commercial purposes or solely for commercial purposes, liability attaches despite the nonprofit status
of the owners. In that event, the organization is under a duty to
maintain the entire sidewalk abutting its property and is liable for injuries to
the public caused by unrepaired defects. This facilitates the objective of the commercial
property exception to the no-liability rule; that is, to impose liability upon the
party able to bear those costs. Here, the trial court properly found that
the church was not a commercial landowner because the church did not use
its property, in whole or in part, for commercial purposes.
HELD : The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons
expressed in Judge Newman's opinion. As a noncommercial landowner, the defendant church did
not owe plaintiff a duty to maintain the sidewalk and it is not
liable for plaintiff's injuries.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED.
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI and ALBIN join
in this opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
A-
10 September Term 2002
ISA DUPREE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE CITY OF CLIFTON,
Defendant,
and
THE NETHERLANDS REFORMED CHURCH,
Defendant-Respondent.
Argued January 21, 2003 Decided February 24, 2003
On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at
351 N.J. Super. 237 (2002).
Mitchell J. Makowicz, Jr., argued the cause for appellant (Blume, Goldfaden, Berkowitz, Donnelly,
Fried & Forte, attorneys).
Barry A. Knopf argued the cause for respondent (Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann &
Knopf, attorneys; Mr. Knopf and Albert L. Cohn, of counsel; Audra DePaolo, on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Newmans opinion
of the Appellate Division, reported at
351 N.J. Super. 237 (2002).
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI and ALBIN join
in this opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
NO. A-10 SEPTEMBER TERM 2002
ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court
ISA DUPREE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE CITY OF CLIFTON,
Defendant,
And
THE NETHERLANDS REFORMED
CHURCH,
Defendant-Respondent.
DECIDED February 24, 2003
Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING
OPINION BY Per Curiam
CONCURRING OPINION BY
DISSENTING OPINION BY
CHECKLIST