stating that sidewalk liability is part of "cost[ ] of doing business," and that sidewalks are "beneficially related to the operation of the business" (quoting Krug v. Wanner, 28 N.J. 174, 180, 145 A.2d 612 (1958))
How later courts described this case
- stating that sidewalk liability is part of "cost[ ] of doing business," and that sidewalks are "beneficially related to the operation of the business" (quoting Krug v. Wanner, 28 N.J. 174, 180, 145 A.2d 612 (1958))
- holding that commercial landowners are responsible for maintaining public sidewalks abutting their property in reasonably good condition and are liable to pedestrians injured as a result of their failure to do so
- explaining that historically, despite the prior “no liability” public- sidewalk rule, a landowner was nevertheless liable “for repairs voluntarily undertaken but negligently performed” (collecting cases)
- holding “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.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Chimiente v. Adam Corp., 221 N.J. Super. 580 (1987)
Stewart's concern that the "no liability" rule will leave innocent parties without recourse, Stewart, supra, 87 N.J. at 155, is inapplicable since the injured party may seek redress against the owner of the private property.[1] While the Stewart rule gives the commercial landowner "incentive to repair deteriorated sidewalks and thereby prevent injuries[,]" ibid., here there was no such incentive, or indeed even a leg…
The opinion
SULLIVAN and CLIFFORD, JJ.,
dissenting.
We would affirm the judgments below in favor of both defendants, on the basis of the long-standing law recited and reaffirmed in Yanhko v. Fane, 70 N.J. 528 (1976). As stated therein, the primary responsibility for maintaining public rights of way such as sidewalks should rest on government. No legal basis or logical reason exists for imposing liability for public sidewalk accidents on the abutting property owner where the condition of the walk is the result of ordinary wear and tear any more than for holding him responsible for accidents due to a similar condition in the public street in front of his property.
SCHREIBER, J., concurring in the result.
For affirmance in part and reversal in part — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices PASHMAN, SCHREIBER, HANDLER and POLLOCK — 5.
For affirmance — Justices SULLIVAN and CLIFFORD — 2.