216 A.3d 169
N.J.2019Background
- On March 30, 2010 a nine-month-old (J.H.) suffered third-degree burns and permanent scarring after prolonged contact with an uncovered, cast-iron steam radiator in a rented Jersey City apartment.
- The apartment building is subject to New Jersey’s Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law and DCA inspections; tenants could shut off individual radiators via a valve at the radiator base.
- Plaintiffs sued owners/managers (Tagliareni entities) for negligence, alleging failure to cover/insulate the radiator.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding no regulatory duty to cover radiators and no new common-law duty. The Appellate Division reversed, finding both a possible regulatory duty under N.J.A.C. 5:10-14.3(d) and a common-law duty based on landlord control.
- The Supreme Court granted certification and reversed the Appellate Division: it held the regulation does not plainly include in-unit radiators and declined to create a new broad common-law duty to require landlords to cover all in-unit radiators, because tenants here had control via the radiator valve.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.J.A.C. 5:10-14.3(d) requires landlords to cover in-unit radiators | Regulation's reference to the "heating system" is broad; radiators are part of the system and must be insulated/guarded | Text and regulatory practice show the DCA did not intend "heating system" to include tenant-controlled in-unit radiators; inspectors do not cite uncovered radiators | Regulation construed plainly and contextually: list (risers, ducts, hot water lines) excludes radiators; no regulatory duty to cover in-unit radiators |
| Whether landlord retained sufficient control over the radiator to impose a common-law duty to cover it | Landlord controls central boiler and thus the heating system; radiator burns are foreseeable so landlord owed duty to exercise reasonable care (e.g., install covers) | Tenants had physical control (shut-off valve) over the unit radiator heat; imposing a universal duty would be unfair and upend settled expectations | No new common-law rule imposed: because tenants could control the radiator via valve, landlord did not retain the necessary control to impose a duty to cover |
| Whether Coleman v. Steinberg compels a duty here | Coleman supports imposing landlord duty where central system control exists and covering exposed parts is reasonable | Coleman is distinguishable: that case involved an up-pipe outside tenant control; here valve permitted tenant control of heat | Coleman distinguished: duty in Coleman premised on landlord control of the specific hazardous component; that control is absent here |
| Whether agency practice/inaction (DCA inspections) bears on the regulatory or common-law duty | Plaintiffs: agency inaction is not dispositive; regulation purpose supports inclusion of radiators | Defendants: long-standing inspection practice and lack of citations show DCA did not treat radiators as covered items | Court gives weight to plain regulatory text and practical agency implementation (inspectors' practice); agency inaction supports reading that radiators are not covered by N.J.A.C. 5:10-14.3(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Steinberg, 54 N.J. 58 (1969) (landlord retained control of central heating up-pipe and owed duty to shield exposed piping)
- Rivera v. Nelson Realty, LLC, 7 N.Y.3d 530 (N.Y. 2006) (New York Court of Appeals declined to impose a common-law duty on landlords to provide radiator covers)
- Scully v. Fitzgerald, 179 N.J. 114 (2004) (landlord duty to exercise reasonable care concerning portions of rental property retained under landlord control)
- Trentacost v. Brussel, 82 N.J. 214 (1980) (purpose and scope of Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law; regulatory authority of DCA)
- Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426 (1993) (factors for recognizing common-law duty: relationship, foreseeability, ability to exercise care, public interest)