New Jersey Supreme Court Doesn't Show A Whole Lot-Ta Love For Commercial Property Owners

Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP


Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP logo
Butler is a civil litigation firm. We are unique because our practice is devoted entirely to defense and insurance litigation. Our clients are corporations, insurance companies, and insured individuals. Our representation has taken us across the United States, to Canada, Mexico, Europe and the Caribbean. We aspire to provide the highest quality counsel while, at the same time, meeting the administrative demands of our institutional clients. After 40 years, our record speaks for itself.
Insurers of commercial property owners take note: in a 4-3 decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court significantly expanded sidewalk liability law.
United States Insurance
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on

Insurers of commercial property owners take note: in a 4-3 decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court significantly expanded sidewalk liability law. Owners of vacant commercial lots in the Garden State now have a duty to maintain the public sidewalks abutting their lots in reasonably good condition and are liable to pedestrians injured as a result of their negligent failure to do so.

Under the facts in Padilla v. Young Il An (A-43-22) (June 13, 2024), the plaintiff tripped and fell on a sidewalk abutting a vacant lot in Camden, New Jersey, later suing the property owners for negligence. The trial judge and Appellate Division ruled that the owners did not owe the pedestrian a duty of care under Abraham v. Gupta, 281 N.J. Super. 81 (App. Div. 1995), which held that commercial property owners are not responsible for maintaining sidewalks abutting non-revenue-generating vacant lots.

The Supreme Court granted certification and reversed the Appellate Division decision, holding that as a matter of fairness, all owners of vacant commercial lots have a duty to maintain abutting sidewalks. In doing so, the Court expanded the legal duty first espoused in Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, Inc., 87 N.J. 146 (1981), which held that commercial landowners are obligated to maintain sidewalks abutting their active business properties or properties with structures on the lot.

Three justices dissented, observing that long-standing common law provided courts with a common thread of factors to evaluate whether a commercial property has the capacity to generate income. The minority also wrote that the decision infringes on legislative authority to impose and enforce sidewalk laws.

In overruling the nearly three-decade-old Abraham decision, the Supreme Court established a bright-line rule that eliminates the need for courts – and, for that matter, insurers – to assess a property's potential profitability or usage for liability purposes and creates consistency and predictability for evaluating risk at the time of underwriting.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More