In a recent New Jersey Supreme Court premises liability decision, The Estate of Desir v. Vertus, the court held that a business owner owed no duty of care to his neighbor to prevent the neighbor from going to the scene where he was shot. In this case, the premises owner suspected that a robbery was taking place in his apartment, and went to a neighbor's house to call the police. The neighbor then attempted to proceed to the premises owner's apartment and was shot and killed by one of the robbers, who was fleeing the subject premises.
The Supreme Court court conducted a "full duty analysis" to determine whether the premises owner owed the neighbor a duty of care to protect from known hazards or those that should be discovered upon reasonable inspection of the premises. This involved consideration of the following four (4) factors: (1) the relationship of the parties; (2) the nature of the risk; (3) the ability to exercise care; and (4) the public-policy considerations. Ultimately, in finding that the premises owner did not owe the neighbor a duty of care was thus not liable for the neighbor's death, the court relied upon the following facts: the injury occurred on a public sidewalk out side the subject premises; the premises owner did not create the circumstance of the crime; and the premises owner did not act in a way that would rescue of the decedent.