In Rowe v. Mazel Thirty, the NJ Supreme Court held on February 2, 2012 that a landowner owes a duty to a police officer to warn of any dangerous conditions of which the owner knew or had reason to know and of which the officer was reasonably unaware. In so doing, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court dismissal of the police officer's suit.

Landowner's Knowledge Of Condition Important

In this case, the police officer was on patrol and had entered the building owner's property as part of a safe block initiative. The agent of the building owner testified that he knew of the "Safe Block" initiative, but had never seen officers on foot patrol. The building owner had also previously received a notice to cure regarding an unsecured basement door, and the owner was further aware that a police officer had come to check the basement door in the past.

Plaintiff alleged that defendants carelessly and negligently supervised, maintained and controlled their premises and failed to adequately warn him of the hazardous conditions. Under these facts, the Supreme Court found that the police officer was a licensee, not an invitee, and the owner had a duty to conduct a reasonable inspection to discover latent dangerous conditions and either repair or warn of them.

The Court's decision to reverse the trial court was correct, however the Court should have found that the police officer was an invitee and entitled to broader protections under NJ premises liability law. In this case, the owner knew of the safe block initiative, knew that officers had come in the past to the location to patrol and knew and had notice of the dangerous condition of the basement. A broader duty of care under these facts should be imposed upon the landlord.