NJ High Court Takes Up Landlord Duty of Care in Radiator Injury Case

Nj Law Journal com Law com

The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the landlord of an apartment building had a duty to protect an infant from rolling into a scalding hot radiator, causing extensive and permanent burns and scarring over the child’s body.

The court, in an order posted Oct. 9, granted the landlord’s petition for certification, following the Appellate Division’s reinstatement of the lawsuit earlier this year. The panel, finding that the issue should be settled by a jury, reversed a trial judge’s summary judgment dismissal.

The incident occurred in 2010, when the infant, identified only as “Jimmy,” was 9 months old, according to the Appellate Division’s March 2018 published decision.

Jimmy was living in an apartment operated by Robert and Maria Tagliareni, who ran a management company called R&M Tagliareni.

Jimmy had been asleep in a car seat but awoke, so his father put him into a bed with the child’s 10-year-old sister. The father, according to court records, took efforts to swaddle Jimmy in blankets so he would not move around while asleep.

However, at some point, Jimmy managed to roll over, and his body came into contact with the uncovered radiator. He sustained third-degree burns over his head, right cheek and left arm, resulting in permanent scarring, the suit claimed.

The child’s parents filed a lawsuit against the Tagliarenis, alleging negligence. As part of discovery, the plaintiffs noted that controls over the radiator were located in a locked room in the basement of the apartment building that was not accessible to the tenants.

A trial judge dismissed the case on summary judgment, saying the defendants had no control over the individual radiator and that they had no duty to provide a protective covering for the heater.

The plaintiffs appealed, and in the unanimous Appellate Division ruling, the panel reversed and reinstated the claim.

“We disagree with these legal conclusions,” Judge Thomas Sumners Jr. wrote for the panel. Judges Clarkson Fisher Jr. and Scott Moynihan joined in the ruling.

“It is well-settled that a landlord has a common law duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition to guard against foreseeable dangers arising from the use of the premises,” Sumners said.

“Hence, a landlord’s duty arises when foreseeable harm exists that falls within the landlord’s control,” he said. “There is nothing in the record to suggest that it was unreasonably burdensome for defendants to cover the radiator.”

The plaintiffs’ attorney, John Molinari, said he was disappointed the court decided to hear the Tagliarenis’ appeal.

“It’s clearly disappointing that the court accepted certification on a 3-0 published ruling,” said Molinari, of Chatham’s Blume Forte Fried Zerres & Molinari.

The Tagliarenis’ attorney, Danielle Hughes of the Red Bank office of Koster, Brady & Nagler, didn’t return a call seeking comment.

radiators have been around for 100+ years. When I was young, none of them had covers other than something metal or glass on the top so the surface could be used to stack magazines, a lamp, etc ... in other words, an extra end table.

they were hot, very hot. We used to love to sit with our stocking feet against them and see who could hold out the longest.

It could be seen as an Act of God that the temperature outside fell so low that the radiators had to produce excess and unexpected heat. I had a small child in one of my units years ago. The mother watched him and the radiators were actually covered. Those covers which were wood and metal with a grill, may not be still available and a carpenter can probably make them and use some grille over the front and put a wooden top on them. Lot's of things happen to kids and small dogs when the wrong males are in charge and the father bears responsibility here. I hope they appeal that. Radiators usually do have shut offs on the side.

Hmmm...I say the parents have a duty to protect their child from potential hazards. The parents knew it could be hot.

Same as safety around a cook stove, elec outlet, steps...

9 month old was not in a contained bed designed to keep children of his age enclosed for safet - crib or playpen.

This is child neglect case!

In NY we are not allowed to leave a child without an adult supervision until 12 years old.

So, this baby was on top of a bed and rolled over and thereby rested it's face against the radiator. Why was this bed pressed up against the radiator. Why was the child set down so close to a radiator that all it had to do was roll over and be touching it?