Estate of Campagna v. Pleasant Point Properties, LLC, 464 N.J. Super. 153 (App. Div. 2020). This opinion is a magnum opus by Judge Sabatino. But he well summarized the ruling in the three short paragraphs that began the opinion:
“This wrongful death and survival case arises out of the fatal stabbing of a rooming house resident by another resident. The assailant had recently been released from prison after serving a sentence for a violent crime, although the rooming house owner and operator were not aware of that criminal history.
“The core question in this case is whether, under New Jersey statutory or common law, a rooming house operator has a legal duty to conduct a criminal background check of prospective residents to promote the safety of other rooming house residents. The trial court found no such duty exists or should be adopted, and therefore granted summary judgment to defendants.
“We affirm. The trial court appropriately rejected plaintiffs’ claim of duty. No such duty is set forth in or implied by our State’s rooming house statutes and regulations, and no other state court has adopted one. As we will discuss, the alleged duty could have problematic and substantial public policy ramifications.”
Whether the claimed duty existed was a pure legal issue. Accordingly, Judge Sabatino applied de novo review.
Plaintiffs had an expert who opined, based on industry custom and practice, that there was a duty. But the court was not bound by that opinion since the existence of a duty is a question of law, and “[a]n expert’s opinion on a question of law is neither appropriate nor probative.”
Judge Sabatino first painstakingly analyzed the Rooming and Boarding House Act of 1979, N.J.S.A. 55:13B-1 et seq. (“RBHA”), and its implementing regulations, from which plaintiffs claimed that a duty arose. Plaintiffs contended that defendants “committed two violations of the RBHA and its regulations by not having a manager with a valid license on site and by not maintaining proper records.”
Though “the RBHA and its regulations emphasize that resident safety is a paramount overall objective,” no language in the statute, its legislative history, or the regulations imposed a duty of the type argued by plaintiffs. In contrast, Judge Sabatino observed, the regulations “do address the significance of a prospective owner or operator’s criminal history” (emphasis by Judge Sabatino), denying a license to applicants who have convicted of certain crimes. That “signifies that no codified duty to perform criminal background checks of prospective residents exists, or was intended by the drafters.”
Separately, Judge Sabatino said, the two violations that plaintiffs alleged did not suffice to support their claim. “It is extremely attenuated to speculate that the presence of a licensed, rather than a yet-to-be-licensed, manager on the premises would have prevented this stabbing, which occurred in the privacy of Campagna’s room. It is equally speculative to presume that competent record-keeping would have saved the decedent’s life, absent a proven legal duty for management to conduct background checks.”
Whether a common law duty existed in these circumstances was “a matter of first impression.” Plaintiffs relied on cases involving the duties of landlords to maintain safe premises, but Judge Sabatino found those cases “highly distinguishable from the present context.” Defendants here were not on notice of the assailant’s violent history, and (unlike in a case cited by plaintiffs that involved a landlord’s failure to place adequate locks on an apartment building, where an assault in a common area then took place) the decedent’s door had a lock on it, he had invited the assailant in to socialize, and the attack took place there, not in a common space.
Finally, Judge Sabatino turned to the “significant public policy ramifications” that might result if plaintiffs’ view were accepted. Rooming house operators would either have to refuse housing to persons with criminal histories, thereby inhibiting their ability to obtain affordable housing, or tell other building occupants about the new resident’s criminal history, thereby violating the occupant’s right to privacy that is contained in the RBHA. “Notably, although certain federal and state housing guidelines do allow property owners to conduct criminal background checks of prospective residents so long as they are not used in a discriminatory manner, such checks are not mandated” (emphases by Judge Sabatino).
Finally, no other state has found a duty of the type that plaintiffs sought. In fact, the Supreme Courts of California and Mississippi have rejected such a duty, Judge Sabatino noted.
Since the issues presented in this case were “novel” and “of first impression,” plaintiffs might seek review by the Supreme Court. A divided Court last year declined to impose a duty on landlords in a case involving burns from an apartment radiator, as discussed here (a case cited by Judge Sabatino). Would the Court, if it granted review, take a similar view of this rooming house case? Or would it view its precedents that did impose a duty on landlords more expansively than did the panel in this tragic case? Perhaps we will see.