Whether all the partners in Telfring Partners L.P were liable for injury caused to the complainant due to the company’s negligent conduct.
A limited partner in New Jersey is not jointly and severally liable for the omissions or actions done by the general partners or the business representatives in the course of work as provided for by Title 42 Partnerships and Partnership Associations Act (2000).
Plaint. Tyquisha was tortuously injured in Newark New Jersey as a result of Telfring’s negligence. She has decided to sue all the owners of the limited partnership, claiming that each of them is liable for the negligent act. Reference is made to the fact that the partnership had agreed to be jointly and severally liable for future omissions by the partnership. The owners are also vicariously liable for the actions done by their employees in the course of employment.
Defense. The defense argument is that the owners of Telfring are not liable for Telfring’s negligence. Therefore, Telfring ought to be sued as a separate entity. The following argument is from the defense’s perspective:
Telfring is a limited partnership. According to statutory law in New Jersey, a limited partner is one who does not take part in the active running or the daily operations and/or management of the business partnership. Such a partner is not jointly and severally liable for the omissions or actions done by the general partners or the business representatives in the course of work. Their only risk is the assets they invest. In the foregoing, the prevailing law vividly provides that a limited partner is shielded from being personally liable for partnership obligations. The business owners are limited partners and are, prima facie, immune from personal liability for acts of omissions committed by the partnership.
The law provides that the immunity of limited partners can only be overruled through the piercing of the corporate veil. Such a situation occurs when the limited partner is a dominant force or uses the partnership to perpetuate crimes such as fraud or propagate malicious endeavors. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to convince the court that indeed the business owners were actively involved in management and control of Telfring. The involvement of the owners should be more than what is expected since the safe harbor protections provided by New Jersey laws allows for the limited partners to take part in some of the partnership activities without being deemed to be in controlling the business. The business owners can still be shareholders of the partnership, provide advisory or consultative services or become an employee or agent of the partnership without being seen as controlling the business. It is therefore upon the plaint to prove that there is sufficient evidence that would render a piercing of the corporate veil upon owners of Telfring partners.e partners in Telfring Partners L.P were liable for injury caused to the complainant
The question in this case is whether all partners in Telfring, being a limited partnership, are personally liable or there is no liability on the part of the limited partners. Looking into two aspects of the business entity, there is sufficient evidence that the immunity enjoyed by limited partners does not apply in this case. The failure to register the business entity as a foreign limited partnership and the initial partnership agreement all work against the defense.e partners in Telfring Partners L.P were liable for injury caused to the complainant