Plaintiff Andris Arias fell in a hole and was injured while rollerblading on a paved pedestrian pathway in Van Saun County Park in Paramus. The Park, owned by the County of Bergen, consisted of 130 acres of land. The issue in Arias v. County of Bergen, 2024 N.J. Super. LEXIS 74 (App. Div. June 14, 2024) was whether the County had immunity under the Landowners Liability Act for this accident.
Under the Landowners Liability Act, certain owners, lessees and occupants of property owe no duty to persons injured while using property for recreational activities and are immune from suit. N.J.S.A. 2A:42A-3. This immunity is available to public entities. The immunity is not available to persons or entities if there is a “willful or malicious failure to guard, or to warn against, a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity.”
The plaintiff argued that the County was not entitled to immunity under this Act because the Park was located in a residential, suburban neighborhood and, therefore, did not qualify as “premises” protected by the Act. The County, however, argued that the focus of the Act was the dominant character of the land and the Park, as a property containing recreational lands, was exactly the type of premises that the Act was created to protect.
Here, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, which order was appealed to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division upheld the dismissal of the complaint. It found that under the “dominant character of the land analysis, it was undisputed that the Park offered the general public access to picnic areas, playgrounds, pavilions, athletic fields, wooded areas, bicycling and wooded paths, and the dog park – without charging a fee.”
The Court noted that the Park’s “dominant character as an open space for sport and recreational activities renders the Park the type of property entitled to protection” under the Landowners Liability Act. Thus, it agreed with the trial court judge that the Park was a “premises” as defined by the Act and that the County was entitled to Landowners Liability Act immunity from this accident. The Appellate Division also agreed that the motion was not premature and affirmed the trial court decision, dismissing the lawsuit.
