The New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act (CIA) bars negligence claims against nonprofit corporations organized exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes. An entity qualifies for charitable immunity when it is formed for non-profit, educational, religious or charitable purpose, and was promoting such objectives and purposes at the time of the injury to a plaintiff who was a beneficiary of the organization’s works.
In Losado v. Princeton University, the court examined whether Princeton University, a non-profit educational organization, was entitled to Charitable Immunity when the plaintiff was injured on its campus. The key question was whether the University was engaged in its educational objectives when renting a pool on campus to an outside organization.
The plaintiff’s daughter participated in a swim meet hosted by the Princeton Tigers Aquatic Club, an organization not affiliated with the university other than pool rental. The plaintiff was injured in a fall as she left the swim meet when she stepped into a depression adjacent to a walkway.
Princeton University filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that they were immune from suit under the CIA. The motion judge found that the plaintiff was a beneficiary of the University at the time of her injury, and therefore dismissed the claim under the CIA. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the Judge erred since the renting of a facility on the campus was not part of the “educational pursuits” that the University was organized to advance. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that youth sports by an outside organization was not an educational objective that Princeton was organized to advance. They further noted that the PTAC was not a charitable organization.
Per statutory requirement, the Appellate Court liberally construed the CIA to afford immunity to a non-profit entity even when renting facilities to members of the general public for social and recreational activities. So long as the non-profit facility is not dominated by rentals of for-profit entities, the use of the facilities serves important social and recreational needs of the community.
Importantly, this case affirms once again that an organization is entitled to charitable immunity even when renting a portion of its property to a non-charitable organization. These type of rental agreements are common between organizations, and will not prevent the non-profit entity from asserting and succeeding on a charitable immunity defense.
Thanks to Heather Aquino Obregon for her contribution.
For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at firstname.lastname@example.org.