# Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, Inc.

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · July 22, 1981 · 87 N.J. 146

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634522

## Case

- **Full name:** Harold Stewart, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 104 Wallace Street, Inc., a Corporation of the State of New Jersey, T/A Ernie’s Tavern, and Jay-Nan Corporation, a Corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendants-Respondents
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** July 22, 1981
- **Citations:** 87 N.J. 146; 432 A.2d 881; 1981 N.J. LEXIS 1666
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Clifford
- **Judges:** Clifford, Pashman, Schreiber
- **Cited by:** 141 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634522

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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))
- 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.”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634522. Public record. Not legal advice.