Opinion ID: 2828539
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: a failure to act under circumstances

Text: in which the actor is under a duty to take positive action to prevent or abate the interference with the public interest or the invasion of the private interest. [Restatement § 824.] This Court has adopted this section of the Restatement. See Birchwood Lakes, supra, 90 N.J. at 592 (adopting Restatement section 824 analysis); accord S. Camden Citizens in Action v. N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 254 F. Supp. 2d 486, 504 (D.N.J. 2003) (applying New Jersey law). As its commentary explains, section 824 of the Restatement authorizes the imposition of liability for a failure to satisfy a duty, as well as the commission of an affirmative act: One is ordinarily subject to no liability to another merely because he has failed to take positive action to prevent another from being harmed. There are, however, certain circumstances under which the law imposes a duty on a person to take positive action for the protection of another and subjects him to liability if he fails to meet the standard of action required in the particular case. [Restatement § 824 comment e (citations omitted).] Thus, while Restatement section 824 confirms that a breach of an affirmative duty may give rise to liability in appropriate 18 settings, it does not give rise to a strict liability claim outside of the abnormally dangerous activity setting recognized by section 822 of the Restatement. The principle that limits private nuisance claims under section 822 of the Restatement to cases involving the defendant’s fault or abnormally dangerous activity also limits the reach of section 839 of the Restatement, the provision at the core of our dissenting colleagues’ analysis. Plaintiffs did not invoke section 839 before the trial court or on appeal. More importantly, that provision does not revive plaintiffs’ nuisance claims in the setting of this case. Section 839 of the Restatement governs a claim that a defendant is liable for a private nuisance because he or she failed to abate an artificial condition: A possessor of land is subject to liability for a nuisance caused while he is in possession by an abatable artificial condition on the land, if the nuisance is otherwise actionable, and (a) the possessor knows or should know of the condition and the nuisance or unreasonable risk of nuisance involved, and (b) he knows or should know that it exists without the consent of those affected by it, and