In Padilla v. Young Il An (A-43-22/087862) (Decided June 13, 2024), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that owners of vacant commercial lots have a common law duty to maintain the public sidewalks abutting those lots in reasonably good condition.
Facts of Padilla v. Young Il An
In September 2019, plaintiff Alejandra Padilla allegedly tripped, fell, and suffered injuries on the sidewalk abutting a vacant commercial lot in Camden. At the time of plaintiff’s fall, defendants Young Il An and Myo Soon An owned the subject lot, which they had purchased in 1992, intending to construct a building there.
According to testimony, they never built a structure on that lot or on the adjacent lot they also owned because “the economic situations [were] really bad,” and they did not purchase liability insurance to cover the lot because insurance companies “didn’t really want to insure it.”
In April 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that defendants’ negligence in failing to reasonably maintain the sidewalk abutting the subject lot caused her fall and resulting injuries. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted defendants’ motion, holding they did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff.
The court relied heavily on Abraham v. Gupta, 281 N.J. Super. 81 (App. Div. 1995), which held that the liability imposed on commercial property owners to reasonably maintain abutting sidewalks does not apply to sidewalks abutting vacant lots. The court reasoned that defendants did not have a duty to maintain the sidewalk because it abutted a vacant lot that was not generating any income, citing Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, Inc., 87 N.J. 146 (1981).
The trial court rejected plaintiff’s contention that summary judgment was improper because a Camden municipal ordinance required defendants to maintain the lot’s abutting sidewalk, explaining that municipal ordinances do not create a separate common law duty. The Appellate Division affirmed.
NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in Padilla v. Young Il An
The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed. It held that all commercial landowners — including owners of vacant commercial lots — have a duty to maintain the public sidewalks abutting their property in reasonably good condition and are liable to pedestrians injured as a result of their negligent failure to do so.
According to the Court, its decision was based largely on “considerations of fairness.” “There is something profoundly unfair about commercial property owners purchasing vacant lots and having no responsibility whatsoever for maintaining the area where the general public traverses,” Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis wrote.
The New Jersey Supreme Court emphasized that purchasing a vacant commercial lot is a business decision that embraces the attendant costs and burdens of conducting business. “Indeed, when someone purchases a vacant commercial lot, that is a business decision that embraces all the attendant costs and burdens of conducting business,” Justice Pierre-Louis wrote. “We conclude that one of those costs necessarily includes maintaining the abutting sidewalks so that they are in a reasonably safe condition for innocent passersby.”
The Court determined that the defendants’ argument to base liability on profitability or a path to profitability is an “unworkable approach that will only further confuse our commercial sidewalk liability law, lead to inconsistent results, and unfairly harm the public.” It further determined that bright-line rule that all commercial property owners owe a duty is the “most workable rule to protect the general public and ensure consistency in our courts.” To the extent that Abraham conflicts with its decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that it is overruled. Finally, Justice Pierre-Louis called on the New Jersey Legislature to address the issue of commercial sidewalk liability.