holding that a commercial landlord had a duty to make reasonable inspections of its own property and an abutting sidewalk and to take such steps as were necessary to correct or give warnings of any hazardous condition under both the "classic commercial landowner liability standard" and the "more fluid Hopkins rule"
How later courts described this case
- holding that a commercial landlord had a duty to make reasonable inspections of its own property and an abutting sidewalk and to take such steps as were necessary to correct or give warnings of any hazardous condition under both the "classic commercial landowner liability standard" and the "more fluid Hopkins rule"
- finding commercial landlord owed duty to employee of tenant as invitee, and that, under Hopkins’s analysis, “[t]he fairness and justice of recognizing a duty in such circumstances are clear beyond cavil”
- holding that given the property manager’s “inspections and the obviousness of the problems . . . the issue of notice is plainly one for the jury”
- "[I]n a long line of cases, our courts have extended a commercial landowner's duty, when warranted by the facts, to cases in which the landowner had no control over the dangerous condition and the condition was not located on its property."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice VERNIERO,
concurring.
I join the Court’s disposition in respect of both the municipality and commercial landowner. I write briefly only to emphasize that I agree with the Court’s legal conclusion concerning the landowner in view of the fact that the dislodged sign was on the landowner’s property (i.e., the sidewalk that the landowner installed and maintained). At the heart of our law is the notion that a party’s “duty of reasonable care toward another turns on whether the imposition of such a duty satisfies an abiding sense of basic fairness under all of the circumstances in light of considerations of *421 public policy.” Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 439 , 625 A.2d 1110 (1993). Fairness would require that in certain circumstances a commercial landowner should be free of legal responsibility, such as when a defective condition is far removed from that party’s control. That is not this ease based on the facts and circumstances set forth meticulously in the Court’s opinion.
For affirmance in part/reversal in part — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices LONG, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN and WALLACE — 7.
Opposed — None.