Plaintiff Andris Arias was injured due to a rollerblading accident at a park owned by the County of Bergen. Plaintiff Arias filed a lawsuit against the County for personal injuries. This case went all the way up to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The issue in the Supreme Court case of Arias v. County of Bergen, 2026 N.J. LEXIS 68 (Jan. 22, 2026) was whether the County had immunity under the Landowners Liability Act for this accident.
Fortunately, for the County, at all levels of the court system, the judges agreed that the County was immune from liability. Further, when the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court clarified the test to be used, making it easier for more premises to quality for this immunity.
Plaintiff Arias was rollerblading at Van Saun County Park owned and operated by the County of Bergen when the plaintiff fell into a pothole on a paved pedestrian path. This park consisted of 130 acres, containing playgrounds, tennis courts, pathways, fishing ponds, and wooded areas. It was available to the public free of charge. Plaintiff sued the County, claiming negligence for failure to maintain the path or warn visitors of the pothole.
Before rendering its decision, the Supreme Court went through the history of the Landowners Liability Act. The first version was enacted back in 1962 and was passed to protect landowners from liability for hunting and fishing on their property. Then, it was replaced in 1968 and immunity was expanded to an “owner, lessee or occupant of premises” for “sport and recreational activities.” Then it was further amended in 1991 to make it clear that it should be liberally construed to serve as an inducement for landowners to permit persons to come onto their property for sport and recreational activities without fear of being sued. At that time, the immunity was also expanded to improved or commercial premises.
Prior to this amendment, the Supreme Court utilized a four part test to determine if there should be immunity. Pursuant to that test, the factors to be considered in determining the applicability of the landowners’ liability were as follows: “the use for which the land is owned, the nature of the community in which it was located, its relative isolation from densely populated neighborhoods, as well as its general accessibility to the public at large.”
However, in Arias, the Court decided that the analysis of whether this Act should apply would depend on the “dominant character” of the premises itself and whether it is open land conducive to engaging in sport and recreational activities. Thus, the four part test was abandoned in favor of this simpler “dominant character” of the premises test.
The Supreme Court expressed its concern that, to hold otherwise, it might discourage counties and municipalities from opening existing or new properties to the public for free. Further, the Court noted that if this park was not covered by the Act, it might cause public entities to close their parks to avoid liability and cause increased costs to taxpayers.
There are two caveats for the Act to provide immunity. First, the premises must be open to the public free of charge. Second, while the Act immunizes negligent conduct, it does not immunize “willful or malicious failure to guard, or to warn against, a dangerous condition, use, structure of activity.” However, based upon this Supreme Court decision, more premises will qualify for immunity under the Landowners Liability Act.
