broad policies that informed those adjudications and to the doctrinal trends which they evince”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 976, 101 S.Ct. 387, 66 L.Ed.2d 237 (1980). The New Jersey Supreme Court has long been a leader in expanding tort liability. For example, it was one of the first courts to announce the doctrine of strict liability, applying it to automobiles. See Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (1960). Moreover, the court’s recent cases show its continuing willingness to expand tort liability in a variety of contexts. See, e.g., Weinberg v. Dinger, 106 N.J. 469, 524 A.2d 366 (1987) (imposing a duty of care on water companies to ensure adequate water pressure for firefighters); T & E Indus., Inc. v. Safety Light Corp., 123 N.J. 371, 587 A.2d 1249 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426,
holding stock dividend payable to actual owner not owner of record holding that the current property owner may not assert a public nuisance claim against the former owner recognizing the cause of action recognizing a cause of action by the owner of contaminated property against a previous owner who allegedly caused the contamination holding that the owner of the land could not bring a 93a action against a prior owner of the land who was not the seller because there was no business connection between the two parties