Frances Green v. Monmouth University (080612) (Monmouth County and Statewide)
206 A.3d 394
| N.J. | 2019Background
- Frances Green injured at a Martina McBride concert held at Monmouth University’s Multipurpose Activity Center (MAC), a university facility open to the public. She alleged a trip hazard on stairs caused her injury.
- Monmouth University is a nonprofit educational corporation whose certificate of incorporation expressly authorizes holding public concerts "to advance the cause of education and wholesome recreation."
- The University contracted with for-profit Thoroughbred Management, Inc. (TMI) (via an assigned booking agreement) to host the concert; TMI paid a $10,000 rental fee and the parties split a $3 facility fee per ticket. The University handled some box-office duties and retained certain concession and parking revenues.
- Green sued for negligence; the trial court granted summary judgment for the University on charitable-immunity grounds. The Appellate Division affirmed in a split decision. Green appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
- The central legal question was whether Monmouth was "promoting" its educational objectives when the injury occurred and whether Green was a beneficiary of those charitable works under the Charitable Immunity Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Monmouth is entitled to charitable immunity for torts occurring at the concert | Green: disputed facts (financial motive, limited educational involvement) make summary judgment inappropriate; concert was a commercial rental, not an educational activity | Monmouth: its charter authorizes public concerts to advance education; hosting the concert advanced its educational purposes | Held: Yes—charitable immunity applies; concert promoted the University’s educational objectives at the time of injury |
| Whether the concert qualifies as an "educational" activity under the Act | Green: labeling the concert educational based on charter language is insufficient; courts would be forced to make subjective artistic judgments | Monmouth: concerts are within its chartered purposes; music is a cultural/educational experience regardless of genre | Held: Concerts (including this one) fall within the broad statutory meaning of educational; courts should not parse artistic merits or genre |
| Whether Green was a beneficiary of the University's charitable works when injured | Green: as a paying member of the public, she should not be treated as a direct beneficiary when the event was effectively commercial | Monmouth: attendees of public concerts are beneficiaries; payment does not defeat beneficiary status | Held: Green was a beneficiary—presence at an event incident to the university's charitable purposes satisfies the Act |
| Whether renting the facility to for-profit entities or using third parties defeats immunity | Green/NJAJ: renting for profit or contracting with for-profit promoters shows a financial motive that defeats immunity | Monmouth: contracting with for-profit agents to run events does not strip immunity; rentals do not eliminate immunity absent dominant, profit-driven use | Held: Using third-party for-profit promoters or renting the MAC for an event does not automatically defeat charitable immunity; no showing that rentals were the dominant, profit-driven use |
Key Cases Cited
- Ryan v. Holy Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, 175 N.J. 333 (2003) (articulates three-part charitable-immunity test: nonprofit status, exclusive educational/charitable purpose, and promotion of those objectives to a beneficiary at time of injury)
- Lax v. Princeton Univ., 343 N.J. Super. 568 (App. Div. 2001) (university immune for injuries at a public concert; musical performances are "cultural and educational" under the Act)
- Bieker v. Community House of Moorestown, 169 N.J. 167 (2001) (rentals to for-profit entities do not automatically defeat immunity unless such rentals are the dominant use)
- Bloom v. Seton Hall Univ., 307 N.J. Super. 487 (App. Div. 1997) (campus social/recreational venues can further educational objectives and support immunity)
- Orzech v. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ., 411 N.J. Super. 198 (App. Div. 2009) (broad view of "educational" includes non-scholastic student experiences)
- Pomeroy v. Little League Baseball of Collingswood, 142 N.J. Super. 471 (App. Div. 1976) (recreational youth activities can qualify as educational for immunity purposes)