In Andris Arias v. County of Bergen (A-45-24/089642) (Decided January 22, 2026), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that Bergen County is immunized from liability under the Landowner Liability Act (LLA) for a rollerblading accident that occurred on a path in Van Saun County Park.
Facts of Arias v. County of Bergen
Van Saun Park is located in Paramus, New Jersey, and is owned and operated by Bergen County. The 130-acre park features playgrounds, pavilions, picnic facilities, a dog park, a zoo, athletic fields, tennis courts, pathways, fishing ponds, and wooded areas. Its amenities are available to the public free of charge.
On April 24, 2021, plaintiff Andris Arias fell into a pothole on a paved pedestrian path while rollerblading in Van Saun Park. Arias asserts that her fall caused a permanent and debilitating neurological condition (complex regional pain syndrome), as well as spinal injuries requiring surgery. Arias filed a complaint against the County, alleging negligence for failure to maintain the path or warn visitors of the pothole.
The County sought to dismiss the suit, asserting immunity under the LLA. Under the Act, an owner, lessee, or occupant of land generally owes no special duty of care to keep the property safe or to warn visitors about dangerous conditions if the visitor is using the land for sport or recreational activities.
The trial court dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that “[t]he Park’s dominant character as an open space for sport and recreational activities renders the Park the type of property entitled to the protections under the LLA.”
NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in Arias v. County of Bergen
The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, holding that the LLA immunizes Bergen County for the accident. “Recognizing that Van Saun Park is the type of ‘premises’ that the Legislature intended to protect and preserve — and that its dominant character is that of open and expansive land onto which the public is invited to recreate — is consistent with legislative intent as well as the above-surveyed precedent,” Justice John Jay Hoffman wrote on behalf of the Court.
Justice Hoffman began by discussing the history of the LLA. A precursor to the statute was enacted in 1962 as an effort to protect rural landowners from liability for hunting and fishing on their property. In 1968, the New Jersey Legislature replaced that Act with the LLA, which expanded immunity to the “owner, lessee or occupant of premises” for “sport and recreational activities.” The LLA did not define “premises,” but rather provided examples of “activities” that would satisfy the statute and immunize the landowner from liability, including “skating, skiing, sledding, tobogganing and any other outdoor sport, game and recreational activity.” In 1991, the Legislature amended the LLA, further broadening the scope of LLA immunity and making clear, for the first time, that the LLA “shall be liberally construed to serve as an inducement to the owners . . . of property, that might otherwise be reluctant to do so for fear of liability, to permit persons to come onto their property for sport and recreational activities.” The 1991 LLA also expanded immunity coverage to include “improved” or “commercial” premises and expanded the examples of covered activities to include “riding snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles or dirt bikes.”
In reaching its decision, the Court also looked to precedent interpreting the LLA. While it noted that court have held that the LLA does not apply to residential land in a suburban setting, such as residential backyards or condominium developments, Van Saun Park — although located in a densely populated area — is the very type of open property the Legislature seeks to protect through the LLA. As Justice Hoffman explained:
But Van Saun Park — a 130-acre partially wooded park onto which the public is invited, free of charge, to participate in numerous sport and recreational activities, including rollerblading — is distinct from the residential properties at issue in Boileau, Mancuso, and Toogood. Even though it is located in a densely populated suburban, rather than rural, area, the park provides the same expansive and accessible property to which people are drawn for outdoor sport and recreation. It is this very type of open property that the Legislature seeks to maintain in New Jersey and protect through the LLA.
The New Jersey Supreme Court also expressed concern that holding Van Saun Park is not a “premises” under the LLA would expose the County to liability and might discourage counties and municipalities from opening existing or new properties to the public for free. “To avoid such risks and costs, municipalities might close parks, avoid opening new ones, or begin charging admission to facilities such as Van Saun Park,” Justice Hoffman wrote. “Such consequences are antithetical to the Legislature’s express purpose in enacting and subsequently broadening the LLA.”
