Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division; March 23, 1994; New Jersey; State Appellate Court
The court granted the defendant Cemetery's motion for judgment, ruling that a nonprofit Title 8A cemetery is not liable for damages to individual mausoleums or grave sites inflicted by vandals. The plaintiffs alleged negligence by the cemetery for damages caused by unknown vandals to a private family mausoleum and approximately twenty burial sites, including the theft of bronze plaques. The cemetery spans 110 acres in Camden and is bordered by major roads and a hospital, with no residential properties nearby. It is open daily, with police occasionally patrolling the grounds. The court noted that while New Jersey law allows for negligence claims against cemeteries based on direct negligent maintenance or employee misconduct, there is no established duty for cemeteries to protect against third-party criminal acts without imposing unreasonable burdens. Previous case law indicates that liability for third-party criminal acts hinges on foreseeability and public policy considerations, emphasizing the need for a duty to guard against such incidents. This case presents a novel legal issue in New Jersey regarding the extent of a cemetery's duty to protect burial sites from vandalism.
Determining the existence of a duty involves assessing fairness through the parties' relationship, the nature of the risk, and public interest. In this case, the cemetery did not owe a duty to protect the burial sites of the plaintiffs, who are family lot owners recognized by the cemetery. There is no contractual obligation for the cemetery to secure these sites. As a nonprofit corporation operating under the New Jersey Cemetery Act, the cemetery manages approximately 40,000 burials without any obligation to distribute profits or pay local real estate taxes. Lot owners have the right to install security devices, especially in mausoleums, as part of maintenance rights.
The risk involved pertains to the cemetery's 110-acre property, which is accessible and vulnerable to trespassers and theft, particularly at night. The cemetery is not bordered by residential areas that could provide incidental security, and there are no established security practices mentioned. The risk is likened to farm fields accessible to nighttime trespassers. Finally, the public interest aspect considers the burden of liability on the cemetery, which serves a crucial role in the community regarding the respectful disposition of human remains and is granted tax exemptions due to its public welfare significance.
A special irrevocable statutory trust, known as the Maintenance and Preservation Fund, is mandated by N.J.S.A. 8A:4-2 to ensure the ongoing maintenance of cemetery facilities, with oversight from the New Jersey Cemetery Board. Cemetery properties are protected from civil judgments resulting from ordinary negligence, preventing their sale through standard execution processes (N.J.S.A. 8A:5-10). Instead, creditors must pursue judicial sequestration of cemetery income (N.J.S.A. 8A:5-13). During jury deliberations on a cemetery’s duty to protect against vandalism, the limited financial resources and operational decisions made by the cemetery board must be considered. The expansion of cemetery liability for third-party actions would conflict with the public interest, which the Legislature aims to protect. The Attorney General, granted amicus curiae status, highlighted financial challenges faced by cemeteries, including land shortages and insufficient funds for maintenance. The court ultimately ruled that the defendant cemetery had no duty to the plaintiff for damages resulting from vandalism and dismissed additional liability claims (breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligent infliction of emotional distress) due to insufficient evidence, granting judgment in favor of the defendant.
