Estate of Desir v. Vertus
214 N.J. 303
| N.J. | 2013Background
- Vertus owned a three-story building in Irvington with a business on the second floor; area known for crime and prior robbery/violence; Vertus, fearing danger, sought help after observing something suspicious in his office; he asked Novaly and St. Louis to use their phone to call his business and to see if anyone answered; Novaly and St. Louis complied and left Vertus’s apartment; Novaly was later shot and killed on the sidewalk while fleeing the scene; the estates of Desir and Novaly filed claims alleging premises liability and negligent failure to warn; the trial court granted summary judgment for Vertus, the Appellate Division reversed, and the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division holding that no duty was owed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vertus owed a duty of care to Novaly under premises liability/rescue doctrine | App.Div held Vertus owed a duty | Court should not impose a duty; no creation of peril by Vertus | No duty owed under traditional tort analysis |
| Whether the rescue doctrine imposes liability in this context | Rescue doctrine supports finding a duty | Rescue doctrine not applicable because Vertus did not create the peril or place Novaly at risk | Rescue doctrine does not supply a basis for liability |
| Whether public policy/fairness supports creating a new duty here | Duty aligns with foreseeability and deterrence | Creating a broad, conduct-based duty is unfair and impractical | No general, generally applicable duty; public policy does not support creation of liability in these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426 (N.J. 1993) (four-factor framework for duty analysis: relationship, risk, ability to exercise care, public policy)
- Kuzmicz v. Ivy Hill Park Apts., 147 N.J. 510 (N.J. 1997) (off-premises danger and fairness/public policy limit duty; foreseeability alone not enough)
- Olivo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 186 N.J. 394 (N.J. 2006) (expands duty to off-premises injuries when danger emanates from the premises and victim identifiable)
- Butler v. Acme Markets, Inc., 89 N.J. 270 (N.J. 1982) (premises owner owes duty to patrons in parking lots in high-crime context when owner aware of prior attacks)
- Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, 149 N.J. 496 (N.J. 1997) (expands duty to patrons outside premises based on awareness of crime nearby)
- Estate of Desir v. Vertus, 418 N.J. Super. 310 (App.Div. 2011) (Appellate Division rejected duty for off-premises rescue scenario; cited by majority and discussed in context)