Ruling: Charitable Immunity

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Charitable Immunity Act, Charitable Immunity Act at N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7 et. seq., shielded Monmouth University from liability after an individual was injured while at a concert on campus. The plaintiff was injured while at a Martina McBride concert which was held at Monmouth University’s Multipurpose Activity Center (“MAC”) and made open to the public for an admission charge. The concert was put on by a for-profit corporation which rented the MAC for that very purpose. The plaintiff slipped and fell at the concert on a step and allegedly suffered injuries.

The plaintiff sued Monmouth University in the Superior Court. Monmouth University successfully moved for summary judgment. The trial court pointed to the Charitable Immunity Act applying to Monmouth University when granting summary judgment. The Charitable Immunity Act states the following, in part, at N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a):

No nonprofit corporation, society or association organized exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes or its trustees, directors, officers, employees, agents, servants or volunteers shall, except as is hereinafter set forth, be liable to respond in damages to any person who shall suffer damage from the negligence of any agent or servant of such corporation, society or association, where such person is a beneficiary, to whatever degree, of the works of such nonprofit corporation, society or association; provided, however, that such immunity from liability shall not extend to any person who shall suffer damage from the negligence of such corporation, society, or association or of its agents or servants where such person is one unconcerned in and unrelated to and outside of the benefactions of such corporation, society or association.

The Law Division referenced Monmouth University’s resolution amending its certification of incorporation, in that its purposes of having such events, including those open to non-students, was to advance education and recreation. Additionally, the plaintiff, a non-student, was a beneficiary of those purposes when she attended. The trial court held that the concert fell within those purposes and thus the immunity applied. The plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s disposition. The plaintiff appealed and certiori was granted by the Supreme Court.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Monmouth University was immune from the plaintiff’s suit pursuant to the Charitable Immunity Act. The Supreme Court framed the issue as to to whether Monmouth University, in holding the event, “engaged in performing the educational objectives it was organized to promote and whether [the plaintiff] was a direct recipient of its works when she attended the concert.” Green v. Monmouth University, - N.J. – (2019). The Court answered “Yes” to both questions. The Court noted that it was not its place to determine which type of music was deemed “educational” or not. Further expounding on that position, the Court stated the following:

By accepting the premise that all music is art, regardless of whether it is country music, classical, rap, or some other type, courts can avoid going down the proverbial rabbit hole of determining what music is considered artistic, and what is not. See [Green v. Monmouth University 452 N.J. Super. 542, 552, n.3 (App. Div. 2018)] Nor does it matter whether the music comes from a mainstream, commercially successful performer or a nonprofit group. The outcome is the same.”

Green v. Monmouth University, - N.J. – (2019)

The Supreme Court also held that application of the immunity was not abrogated when Monmouth University rented out the MAC to a for-profit entity.

“A charitable entity should be allowed to contract with third-party, for-profit entities to help facilitate the logistics of establishing and running a charitable event -- like a concert --inasmuch as certain third parties undoubtedly have certain resources, contacts, and expertise that a charitable entity may not possess. If hiring third-party professionals triggers the loss of an entity’s immunity status, non-profits in turn will be dissuaded from presenting religious, charitable, or educational events, which is contrary to the Legislature’s intent.”

Green v. Monmouth University, - N.J. – (2019)

Francis J. Leddy, Jr. Esq.June 26, 2019