J.H. v. R & M Tagliareni, LLC, 184 A.3d 922

Background

Infant plaintiff (Jimmy) suffered third-degree burns and permanent scarring after contact with an uncovered steam radiator in a rented apartment of a multi‑dwelling building.
The building’s boiler was in a locked basement room under defendants’ exclusive control; apartments lacked thermostats and heat was supplied from the boiler.
Radiator heat could only be controlled by a shut‑off valve at the radiator base; opening the valve made the radiator extremely hot within minutes.
Plaintiffs sued landlord/manager entities (R & M Tagliareni, LLC and Robert & Maria Tagliareni, II, LLC); the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no duty because tenants controlled the radiator.
On appeal, the Appellate Division examined (1) whether defendants retained control of the heating system such that a common‑law duty existed to protect tenants/guests, and (2) whether N.J.A.C. 5:10‑14.3(d) imposed an independent duty to guard heating components.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants had a common‑law duty to protect tenant/guests from the radiator	Defendants retained control over the heating system (no thermostat; boiler control) so they owed a duty to guard against foreseeable burn risk	Tenants (or their guests) effectively controlled the radiator via the shut‑off valve; defendants lacked notice and control so no duty	Reversed: defendants retained control such that a jury may find a common‑law duty and breach
Whether N.J.A.C. 5:10‑14.3(d) includes radiators as part of the “heating system” imposing a duty to cover/insulate	The regulation’s purpose (prevent burns from chance contact) reasonably includes radiators; thus it creates a duty to guard radiators	Regulation’s listed examples (risers, ducts, hot water lines) do not expressly mention radiators, so radiators are excluded	Radiators are covered by the regulation as a matter of plain and purposive construction; plaintiffs may proceed under the regulation
Whether absence of prior complaints or DCA citations defeats liability	Prior incidents or citations are not required where the dangerous condition existed at the inception and landlord retained control	Lack of complaints and no DCA violations show no notice or regulatory breach	Court rejects defendants’ reliance on absence of complaints/citations as dispositive; material issues remain for jury
Whether the shut‑off valve alone shifts control to tenants	Plaintiffs: valve provides only on/off and is ineffective without thermostat; true temperature control remains with landlord	Defendants: valve gives tenants control; therefore landlord lacks operational control	Court finds the valve’s limited function insufficient to transfer effective control; landlord retained control

Key Cases Cited

Coleman v. Steinberg, 54 N.J. 58 (affirming landlord duty where single‑control heating system retained by landlord)
Scully v. Fitzgerald, 179 N.J. 114 (landlord duty to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (standard of review for summary judgment)
Laidlow v. Hariton Mach. Co., 170 N.J. 602 (prior accidents not sole determinant of dangerousness)
Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 (protective measures may be reasonable and low cost)