Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

Charitable Immunity Act causes death of a case against cemetery.

January 19, 2018
Jack v. Calvary Cemetery & Chapel Mausoleum, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3041 (App. Div. Dec. 11, 2017)

The plaintiff filed suit against a cemetery, owned by the parish of Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception and operated by the Diocese of Camden, after the plaintiff’s wheelchair wedged in a crack in the sidewalk and caused him to fall out of his chair and fracture his wrist. It was undisputed that the Diocese and the Cathedral were established for “religious, ecclesiastical, charitable and educational purposes.” The plaintiffs contended, however, that the Charitable Immunity Act did not provide immunity for the defendants because the operation of the cemetery itself was not charitable or religious work and because the plaintiffs were not beneficiaries of any of the charitable or religious work of the defendants. The plaintiffs also contended in the alternative that, even if the Act applied, the cemetery’s actions constituted gross negligence, which would preclude immunity in this matter. The Appellate Division found that the Charitable Immunity Act applied in this case because, unlike in previous similar cases, the cemetery was owned by a religious and/or charitable institution, and the cemetery itself was not being used for commercial purposes. Here, rather, the funeral was conducted “[b]y a priest in accord with the tenets and protocol of the Catholic faith.” The court further found unpersuasive the fact that neither of the religious and charitable institutions expressly mentioned the operation of the cemetery in their certificate of incorporation of bylaws. Lastly, the court noted that the plaintiff was indeed a beneficiary of the charitable works as he attended the funeral conducted by a priest at the mausoleum and was injured while leaving the service. The Appellate Division’s decision once again illustrates the broad scope of application of the Charitable Immunity Act. It is clear that any party who chooses to engage with a charitable organization—even by attending a funeral in a cemetery owned by a religious entity—will have a difficult time surviving the Act’s procedural barriers. Thus, it is important for defendants in a premises liability case to investigate the degree to which the property in question may be affiliated with a religious or charitable entity.


Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018

Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2018 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Affiliated Attorney

Richard J. Halmo
(973) 618-4129

Practice Areas

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."