Tort Claims Act
Nailah Taylor v. Town of Morristown, Morristown Housing Authority, et al
Categories: TCA, Tort Claims Notice
The Appellate Division, on leave granted, reversed the Trial Court’s decision to deny the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint. The Appellate Division found that the Plaintiff failed to comply with N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 and 59:8-9.
Plaintiff failed to file a timely TCA notice or move for lease to file a late notice of claim. The Appellate Division also rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the discovery rule should apply to toll the accrual date for her claim, as the record demonstrated no attempt by the Plaintiff to “exercise ordinary diligence” in pursuing her claim. Plaintiff failed to show that she was unaware that a third party (the MHA) may be liable for that injury. Even after receiving a letter which would have put a reasonable person on notice that the Town of Morristown may not own the property where she fell, she failed to investigate ownership of whether any other parties were potentially liable.
Relying on N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, which provides that a “claimant shall be forever barred from recovering against a public entity…if…the claimant failed to file the claim with the public entity within ninety days of accrual of the claim except as otherwise provided by N.J.S.A. 59:8-9.” Our Supreme Court has held that upon expiration of the one year late notice period (N.J.S.A. 59:8-9) “the court is without authority to relieve a plaintiff from his failure to have filed a notice of claim, and a consequent action at law must fail. H.C. Equities, LP v. City of Union, 247 N.J. 366, 383 (2021).
Derita v. City of Wildwood, et al
Categories: Tort Claims Act, Dangerous Condition, Actual or Constructive Notice, Boardwalk
Plaintiff fell on the Boardwalk in the City of Wildwood while riding her bicycle. While the Court found that a dangerous condition existed due to the board where she fell being raised about 2 to 2 1/2 inches, the Honorable J. Christopher Gibson granted the motion for summary judgment finding that the City of Wildwood did not create the dangerous condition, had no actual or constructive notice of any defects that existed on the Boardwalk so as to give rise to Plaintiff’s fall and did not act palpably unreasonable with regard to maintaining the Boardwalk and its boards.
Categories: Tort Claims Act, Respondeat Superior, §1983, False Arrest, Conspiracy
Plaintiff, a naturalized citizen of Palestinian decent, was arrested and charged with among other things, driving under the influence. Despite acknowledging a lack of odor of alcohol they continued field sobriety tests. Plaintiff had trouble with the reverse alphabet and the finger to nose test because he had trouble reading the directions. Plaintiff also blew a “0.00” on a breathalyzer test. Though not charged with driving under the influence and reckless driving initially, one day after a meeting he requested with the Chief was cancelled he received summonses in the mail for the same. Plaintiff filed suit for false arrest, negligent infliction of emotional distress and claims pursuant to Monell. United States District Court Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez dismissed the respondent superior claims as to the Chief and the Township finding Mantua, as a municipality is not liable for the misconduct of its employees under §1983 on a theory of respondent superior and that neither was Chief Sawyer. As to the Monell claim, the Court held that even a liberal reading of the complaint compelled the conclusion that Plaintiff failed to adequately set forth sufficient factual allegations to demonstrate a plausible claim for relief for municipal liability on theories of failure to train and or deliberate indifference. The Court found that the allegations amounted to no more than a mere recitation of the legal elements necessary to establish municipal liability under §1983; further finding that the Complaint fails to allege facts suggesting Mantua promulgated an official policy or maintained a custom that was the “moving force” that led to the alleged deprivation of the Plaintiff’s rights.
Categories: Tort Claims Act, Dangerous Condition, Intended Use, Boardwalk
Plaintiff was injured while riding his bicycle on the Boardwalk in Ocean City in the designated “surrey” lane and not the designated bicycle lane when his front wheel became lodged in a gap between the boards. The boards in the surrey lane run parallel to the beach while all other boards run perpendicular to the beach. The Honorable J. Christopher Gibson granted a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant finding that the Plaintiff was not riding in the correct lane on the boardwalk and as such, was not using the same with “due care in a manner in which it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used.” The Court found that due to the Plaintiff not using the lane as intended, the height differential did not create a dangerous condition. The condition was only dangerous because the Plaintiff failed to exercise due care.
Glanzmann v. City of Wildwood, et al
Categories: Tort Claims Act, Dangerous Condition, Notice, Palpably Unreasonable, Beach
Plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on a beach walkway (comprised of wooden boards that are joined together in four foot sections and are laid flat directly on the sand) in the City of Wildwood. The walkway was installed so that beachgoers can walk on the same when the sand is too hot or when they are carrying something, as it is easier to walk on than the sand. While the Honorable J. Christopher Gibson found that the fluctuating height of the unsecured wooden board in the walkway constituted a dangerous condition, he further held that the Plaintiff could not establish that the City had actual or constructive notice of any defect on the beach walkway when the Plaintiff was injured. Court also found that the City’s inspection procedures utilized by the City were not palpably unreasonable. He then granted the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Elm v. Nardi, City of Cape May, et al
Categories: Tort Claims Act, Actual and Constructive Notice, Palpably Unreasonable, Sidewalk
Plaintiff tripped and fell on sidewalk in front of 1006 Washington Street in the City of Cape May due to a crack in the sidewalk. The City of Cape May has an ordinance which places the burden on the abutting property owners to maintain their sidewalks. The Law Division found that the Plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of material fact demonstrating that the City of Cape May controlled the sidewalk in question. The Court further held that even if the City did control the sidewalk, the Plaintiff failed to show that the City had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and granted the City’s Motion for Summary Judgement. Finally, the Court held that Plaintiff could not prove that the City’s action or inaction was palpably unreasonable.
Wurst v. City of Ocean City, et al
Categories: Tort Claims Act, Dangerous Condition, Intended Use, Boardwalk
Plaintiff was injured while riding her bicycle on Wesley Road in the City of Ocean City. She claims she fell when her bike tire encountered an uneven, raised area of the roadway where the concrete section joins a section paved with asphalt. The Trial Court (Honorable J. Christopher Gibson) had granted a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendants and the Plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the granting of Summary Judgment finding that the evidence before the Trial Court established that the Plaintiff was riding her bike in the asphalt section of Wesley Road, which is considered the shoulder of the road under New Jersey law. As such, the Plaintiff was riding on the shoulder and not using the roadway with “due care in a manner in which it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used.” The Court found that due to the Plaintiff not using the roadway as intended, the height differential did not create a dangerous condition.
Brooks v. City of Pleasantville
Categories: Tort Claims Act, Permanent Injury
Plaintiff, a New Jersey Transit bus driver, slipped a fell on black ice in the City of Pleasantville. The Honorable Nelson Johnson dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint in response to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to the permanency of the Plaintiff’s injuries.
Categories: Tort Claims Act, Dangerous Condition
Plaintiff stepped into a depression or hole while walking on South High Street in the City of Millville. Plaintiff was walking in the street, not on the pedestrian sidewalk available to her, when both of her feet went into a dip and felt a bad pain, mostly in her left foot. Plaintiff claimed this depression in the roadway constituted a dangerous condition that caused her injuries. The Trial Court granted the City’s Motion for Summary Judgement, finding the City immune under the TCA because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence establishing the depression or hole constituted a dangerous condition within the meaning of the Act. The Appellate Division affirmed the holding of the Trial Court, noting that a dangerous condition is defined as one that creates a substantial risk of injury when used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used. The Appellate Division found that the depression in the street did not create a substantial risk of injury when the property was used with due care. The Appellate Division found that no reasonable jury could conclude the depression in the street created a substantial risk of injury when the street was used with due care in the manner in which it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used, operation of vehicles.
Pinella v. Medford Township Public School District
Categories: Tort Claims Act, Dangerous Condition, Palpably Unreasonable
Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet cafeteria floor where the District had positioned signs to warn people entering the cafeteria of the wet floor. The Trial Court granted the motion for summary judgement filed on behalf of the Defendant District holding that it could not find that “putting up signs and mopping a cafeteria floor…creates a dangerous condition.” The Plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that even if the Plaintiff’s evidence and expert report established a dangerous condition, the trail court correctly determined that the placing of the cones or signs to warn of the wet floor was not palpably unreasonable. The question the trial court was required to answer was not whether the District could have taken every conceivable measure, or in hindsight, taken extraordinary steps to guard against the wet floor; rather, it was whether the action in placing the signs where they were plainly visible to all who entered the cafeteria was palpably unreasonable. The Appellate Court found that it was not.
Categories: Tort Claims Act, Actual and Constructive Notice, Palpably Unreasonable, Beach
This matter involved a trip and fall by the Plaintiff in the Township of Lower. She fell when walking near the beach exit and she tripped and fell on a larger piece of concrete/cement buried in the sand. In granting summary judgment, the Honorable J. Christopher Gibson held that the Township had no notice of the dangerous condition in the subject area. While Judge Gibson held that the concrete was a dangerous condition, he further held that the Township had no notice of the same, noting that no rational fact finder could find that “simple inspection” would have resulted in the discovery of the dangerous condition to satisfy notice under the Act. Finally, the Court found that the conduct of not inspecting the beach was not palpably unreasonable.
Gostkowski and Capuano v. Bryant, et al
Categories: Tort Claims Act, Actual and Constructive Notice, Palpably Unreasonable, Sidewalk
Plaintiff tripped and fell on sidewalk in front of the home of the Bryant’s in the Town of Westfield on uneven sidewalk. Westfield has an ordinance which placed the burden on the abutting property owners to maintain their sidewalks. The Law Division found that the Plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of material fact demonstrating that Westfield had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and granted the Town’s Motion for Summary Judgement. Plaintiffs appealed and the Appellate Division affirmed holding that no jury could objectively conclude that Westfield’s failure to protect plaintiff from the “broken and/or defective sidewalk” that caused his injury constituted “behavior that is patently unacceptable under any given circumstances.”
Categories: Tort Claims Notice, Contribution, Indemnification
Plaintiff, while on a school outing, was killed when she fell from a ride on Morey’s Piers in the City of Wildwood. After the Plaintiff filed suit, Morey’s attempted to third party in the school that sponsored the trip, seeking contribution and common-law identification. The Supreme Court held that when a defendant does not serve a timely notice of claim on a public entity, and it is not granted leave to file a late notice of claim, the statute bars that defendant’s cross-claim or third-party claim for contribution and common law indemnification against the public entity and thus, barred the Morey claim.
Categories: Tort Claims Act, Respondeat Superior
The Honorable Stanley Bergman granted summary judgement in favor of the Defendant, Galloway Township finding there was no conspiracy to defame the Plaintiff. Thus, the Court applied the statutory immunities available under the Tort Claims Act and granted the Motion. The Plaintiff had asserted a cause of action for defamation against James Gorman (a Township Committee Person) and a respondeat superior claim against the Township. The Plaintiff asserted that he township manager conspired with Defendant Gorman (who had caused letters to be published that painted Plaintiff in a non-flattering light) by not taking any action by either investigating Gorman or taking action to stop his actions. The Court found that there was no evidence to suggest a meeting of the minds of the manager and Gorman or that they had reached an understanding to defame the Plaintiff. The respondeat superior theory also fell, as the Court found that there was no evidence that the act of publishing the allegedly defamatory letters by Gorman was within the scope of his employment as a committee person.
Tuman v. Monroe Township, et al
Categories: TCA, Tort Claims Notice
The Honorable Samuel J. Ragonese granted the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement finding that the Plaintiff, through her attorney, failed to comply with N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 and 59:8-9. The Court analyzed the information required to be supplied by 59:8-4 and found that as to subsection (e), there was no indication anywhere that Monroe Township was being sought to be held liable and there was no amount asserted for compensation under subsection (f). After analyzing the information provided, the Court found that while some information was provided, it cannot be said that the information was “substantially” in compliance with 59:8-4 and as such, the Motion for Summary Judgement was granted.
Linda Clark v. City of Wildwood, et al
Categories: Tort Claims Act, Boardwalk, Trip and Fall Dangerous Condition
The New Jersey Appellate Court affirmed lower court decision granting Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendants. Plaintiff tripped and fell while walking on the Wildwood Boardwalk. Plaintiff claimed she fell because she was trying to get out of the way of the Tram Car and wasn’t looking down. Lower court held that no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the area of the boardwalk where Plaintiff tripped was a dangerous condition, that the defendant had no actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition and that the actions or inactions of the City of Wildwood were not palpably unreasonable. He also found that the plaintiff’s injuries did not rise to threshold level of compensation required by the TCA. The Appellate Division found no basis to disrupt the holding of the lower court.
Roening v. City of Atlantic City, et al
Categories: Tort Claims Act, Boardwalk, Trip and Fall, Dangerous Condition, Actual or Constructive Notice, Palpably Unreasonable
New Jersey Appellate Court affirmed lower court decision granting Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Appellate Panel found that while a nail protruding from the boardwalk was a dangerous condition, the Plaintiffs failed to establish that the city had actual or constructive notice of condition and that their actions in failing to repair it were palpably unreasonable. In fact, the appellate Panel agreed with the lower court in finding that the evidence showed that the City’s practice of inspecting and repairing the Boardwalk was sufficient and that perfection is not required under the TCA. The discovery had revealed that the City had a full time inspector who looked 5 days a week, twice a day, for tripping hazards along the approximately 4 ½ mile boardwalk built with about 80,000 nails and screws. The Roening court also cited to the Charney v. City of Wildwood case and reiterated that even if the City had notice, the decision it cannot be said that the decision to leave a one and one-half inch deep, one and one-quarter inch wide triangular hole unrepaired was palpably unreasonable (did not constitute the kind of outrageous or patently unacceptable behavior that rises to the level of palpable unreasonableness).
Stephens v. Stockton University, et al
Categories: Tort Claims Act, Monell and Respondeat Superior, Eleventh Amendment Immunity, §1983
Terms:
Summary: The Honorable Karen Williams, United States District Court Judge, granted the Township of Galloway’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice. The Court found that the Plaintiff, Mare A. Stephens, who filed a complaint against numerous defendants, including the Township, claiming a violation of his due process rights, engaging in malicious prosecution, and abuse of process, utilizing false evidence, intentionally inflicting emotional distress, defaming his character and violating his civil rights under the theories of respondeat superior and through the application of the Monell Doctrine, failed to show any employee of or agent of the Defendant Township was involved in the Plaintiff’s state case and as such, the Township could not be held responsible under a respondeat superior theory. In addition, the Court found that the Plaintiff failed to assert sufficient facts to assert a Monell claim. More specifically, Plaintiff failed to present any policy or custom and assert that it had a causal connection to the alleged deprivation of his rights. The Court held that the Complaint was deficient as to any facts that could conceivably establish a Monell claim, let alone provide the facts necessary to show deliberate conduct on the part of Galloway Township to demonstrate that it was the “driving force” behind the depravation Plaintiff asserts.
Judge Williams also dismissed all of the Plaintiff’s New Jersey Tort Claims Act claims against all defendants due to Plaintiff’s failure to file a notice of tort claim within the period prescribed by the Act.
Pasquerella v. City of Cape May
Categories: Tort Claims, Dangerous Condition, Actual or Constructive Notice, Roller Skating Rink, Palpably Unreasonable
The Honorable James H. Pickering, Jr. granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the City of Cape May and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff was injured while skating at the Cape May Convention Center and claimed that the City was negligent in that it maintained a dangerous condition, had actual or constructive notice of the same and was palpably unreasonable in addressing the same. The Court disagreed with the Plaintiff on all of these issues, relying on the Roller Skating Safety and Fair Liability Act as well as the protections afforded by the Tort Claims Act.
Irvine et. al. v. Washington Township, et. al.
Category: Tort Claims Act
Terms: Dangerous Condition; Public Property; Plan and Design Immunity; Permit Immunity; Palpably Unreasonable
Summary: This matter arises from the tragic death of a fifteen year old girl who was struck by a motor vehicle on Route 42 after leaving a carnival that was sponsored by the high school. The carnival was situated on State property along Route 42, and the Township had erected a orange, synthetic fence to barrier and enclose the carnival. The Plaintiffs, the decedent’s parents, filed a complaint against the Township, amongst other parties. Upon motion for summary judgment, the Hon. Samuel J. Ragonese, J.S.C., dismissed the complaint with prejudice against the Township. The Court found that the only public property of the Township was the fence itself, and that both plan and design immunity as well as permit immunity were applicable. The Court further noted that Plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the Township acted in palpably unreasonable manner.
Frederick v. Borough of West Wildwood, et. al.
Category: Tort Claims Act
Terms: Tort Claims Notice; Harassment; Intentional Infliction
Summary: The Plaintiff, former mayor of the Borough of West Wildwood, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County, against the Borough, the mayor, its commissioners, and other officials for claims of harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and other claims. The Plaintiff never filed a tort claims notice with the Borough prior to filing suit. On a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Borough, the Hon. James H. Pickering, Jr., J.S.C., dismissed the Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice as the Judge ruled that the Plaintiff’s causes of action were subject to the notice requirements of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, and the Plaintiff failed to timely file a tort claims notice with the Borough.
Calnan, et. al. v. City of Ocean City, et. al.
Category: Tort Claims Act
Terms: Trip and Fall, Sidewalk, Summary Judgment; Public Property; Municipal Ordinance; Commercial Property
Summary: The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the City of Ocean City and other defendants as a result of a trip and fall that allegedly occurred due to an uneven/raised portion of sidewalk in front of the commercial property owned by one of the named defendants. At the time, the City had in effect municipal ordinances stating that the city’s code official was responsible for inspecting sidewalks to determine their condition, as well as noticing property owners of any defects which would then require the owner to repair such defects. The City of Ocean City filed a motion for summary judgment asserting primarily that the city was not liable because it did not own, control, or maintain the sidewalk on which the trip and fall occurred. The Hon. James H. Pickering, Jr., J.S.C. granted summary judgment on the grounds that (1) the city did not own or control the sidewalk, (2) the sidewalk ordinances did not create a duty that the city owed, and (3) the city cannot be liable for failure to enforce its sidewalk ordinance as to the property owner.
Category: Tort Claims Act
Terms: Trip and Fall; Boardwalk; Actual or Constructive Notice; Dangerous Condition; Palpably Unreasonable
Summary: The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the City of Ocean City after allegedly sustaining injuries as result of tripping and falling due to a nail protruding from the city’s boardwalk. The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court’s granting of summary Judgement, stating that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the City’s practice of inspecting and repairing defects in the boardwalk was “palpably unreasonable”.
Kochmer v. City of North Wildwood, et. al.
Category: Tort Claims Act
Terms: Tort Claims Notice; Trip and Fall; Sidewalk; Failure to State a Claim
Summary: Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County, against the City of North Wildwood after the Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a public sidewalk. On a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a claim, the Hon. James H. Pickering, Jr., J.S.C., dismissed the Complaint with prejudice based upon the Plaintiff’s failure to serve the Defendant with a Tort Claims Notice, as well as the failure to request leave of the Court to file notice within one year of the accrual of the claim.
Rodriguez v. Kolbe, Jr., et. als. (Opinion)
Category: Tort Claims Act
Terms: Title 59; Permanent Injury, Tort Threshold; Pain and Suffering
Summary: Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, against City of Pleasantville after Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by a Captain of the Pleasantville Fire Department in the scope of his employment. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the Plaintiff’s injuries did not meet the tort threshold as required by N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d). The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding that the Plaintiff did not satisfy the two-prong test under Brooks v. Odom, 150 N.J. 395. Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff could not established a permanent loss of the use of a bodily function that is substantial. Included in the Court’s decision is a Table summarizing each reported and unreported opinion addressing the issue of whether or not a plaintiff may recover for pain and suffering in a claim made against a public entity and/or public employee.
Michael Lusas v. City of Ocean City, et. al. (Opinion)
Category: Tort Claims Act
Terms: Notice of Claim; Contribution and Indemnification; Slip and Fall
Summary: The Defendants filed a Third-Party Complaint against Ocean City as a result of the Plaintiff slipping and falling on the Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff’s property. The Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff sought contribution and indemnification from Ocean City. Prior to the expiration of the Discovery period, Ocean City filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking to have all claims dismissed based upon the Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff’s failure to provide a timely Notice of Claim to the municipality. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Cape May County (Hon. J. Christopher Gibson, J.S.C.) granted summary judgment in favor of Ocean City, finding that the claims against Ocean City were barred by the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 (Notice of Claim).
Robert Chapman v. City of Wildwood, et. al. (Opinion)
Category: Tort Claims Act
Terms: Trip and Fall; Dangerous Condition; Actual or Constructive Notice
Summary: The Plaintiff field a Complaint under the Tort Claims Act against the City of Wildwood for injuries sustained while walking on the boardwalk and allegedly tripping and falling on an elevated or uneven board. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Cape May County, (Hon. J. Christopher Gibson, J.S.C.) granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, City of Wildwood. The Court found that the Plaintiff did not establish that the boardwalk presented as dangerous condition within the meaning of the Tort Claims Act. The Court further found that, even if the boardwalk presented a dangerous condition, the Plaintiff failed to establish that the City of Wildwood had either actual of constructive notice of the condition.
Kim Walter v. City of Ocean City
Category: Tort Claims Act
Terms: Slip and Fall; Ice/Snow Removal Immunity
Summary: The Plaintiff filed suit against the City of Ocean City for injuries she sustained after allegedly slipping and falling on snow/ice that had accumulated on the Ocean City Boardwalk. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the ruling of the Trial Court granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Ocean City. The Appellate Division held that, although the boardwalk is not contiguous to the street, the ice/snow removal immunity extended to the area of the boardwalk, and the City of Ocean City was entitled to such immunity.
Corrine Sugalski v. City of Cape May, et. al.
Category:
Tort Claims Act
Terms:
Permanent Injury Threshold; Sidewalk; Trip and Fall
Summary:
The Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the City of Cape May after she tripped and fell
on an allegedly elevated sidewalk. The Defendant, City of Cape May, filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment seeking to have any and all claims dismissed against it, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to
show (1) a dangerous condition existed, (2) that the City of Cape May had notice of the alleged
dangerous condition, and (3) that the City acted unreasonably. Alternatively, the Defendant also
requested summary judgment on the issue of whether the Plaintiff presented evidence as to the
permanent injury threshold requirement under the Tort Claims Act. The Superior Court of New
Jersey, Cape May County, denied the Defendant’s request to dismiss any and all claims against it,
finding that there existed genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of a dangerous condition,
notice of the condition, and unreasonableness. However, the Court did grant summary judgment on
the threshold issue, precluding the Plaintiff from recovering for any type of pain and suffering
damages.
Portmann v. Borough of Spring Lake, et al. (Opinion)
Category:
Tort Claims Act/Dangerous Condition
Terms:
Trip and Fall; Boardwalk; Palpably Unreasonable Conduct; ½ inch height differential
Summary:
An Appellate Division Decision on an appeal from the Motion Court’s granting of Summary Judgment which found that a one-half inch differential was not a “dangerous condition”. The Appellate Court confirmed that the granting of Summary Judgment because the Plaintiff could no show that the condition constituted a “substantial risk of injury” or that the Defendant’s conduct in failing to correct the condition is palpably unreasonable.
Patricia Shilinsky, et. al. v. Borough of Ridgefield (Opinion)
Category:
Tort Claims Act (TCA)
Terms:
Trip and Fall; Dangerous Condition; Palpable Unreasonableness
Summary:
The Plaintiff filed a Complaint under the TCA against the Borough of Ridgefield for injuries she sustained while crossing the middle of the street and tripping over cracks and/or depressions existing in the street. The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the granting of Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant, finding that the Plaintiff (1) failed to establish that a dangerous condition existed because the Plaintiff “jaywalked” by crossing in the middle of the street rather than at a crosswalk designated for pedestrian travel, and (2) failed to show that the Borough discretionary decision to not allocate limited financial resources to fixing the depressions in the street to be palpably unreasonable.
Ramon Soberal v. City of Millville, Department of Parks & Public Property (Opinion)
Category:
Tort Claims Act (TCA)
Terms:
Trip and Fall; Dangerous Condition; Palpable Unreasonableness
Summary:
The Plaintiff filed a Complaint under the TCA against the City of Millville for injuries he sustained to his leg after falling into a hole while walking through a park which had been closed to the public, but still the property by the City. The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the granting of Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant by the Trial Court, finding that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the City acted palpably unreasonable by failing to inspect the park and eliminate any potential hazards. The record established that the City did not act palpably unreasonable because it had done the following: closed the park to the public prior to the accident; placed a locked, yellow gate at the entrance of the park; posted signs warning citizens not to trespass in the area; and, employed a safety coordinator to make weekly patrols though the park to look for hazards and advise any persons located in the area to vacate the property.
Andrew J. Buterbaugh v. Township of Reading (Opinion)
Category:
Tort Claims Act (TCA)
Terms:
Ice on Roadways; Dangerous Condition; Actual or Constructive Notice
Summary:
The Plaintiff filed a Complaint under the TCA against the Township for injuries sustained during a single car motor vehicle accident. The Plaintiff suffered significant injuries after his vehicle slid on a patch of ice on a roadway while navigating a right curve in the road. The Plaintiff alleged that poor roadway drainage was a contributing factor to his motor vehicle accident and sought to hold the Township liable. The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the granting of Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant, holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the Defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. The only proof of notice submitted by the Defendant was the fact that an ice-related accident had occurred on the same roadway approximately two years prior near the location of his accident. The Court found the previous occurrence was not the same location, and that a potentially dangerous condition at one location cannot serve as notice of a dangerous condition at a different location.
Estate of Shirley Woodington, et. al. v. City of Wildwood, et. al. (Opinion)
Category:
Tort Claims Act (TCA)
Terms:
Permanent Injury, Disfigurement, Scarring, Pain and Suffering Threshold
Summary:
The Plaintiff filed a Complaint under the TCA against the City of Wildwood for injuries she sustained as a result falling out of her wheelchair while on the Wildwood Boardwalk. The Plaintiff submitted a claim for pain a suffering pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d). The Trial Court found that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the first prong of a pain and suffering claim, that the injuries suffered were objectively permanent. The Court noted that the parties did not submit expert reports concerning whether Plaintiff’s injuries were permanent based upon objective medical evidence, and in the absence of lay or expert testimony as to whether Plaintiff’s injuries are permanent, the Plaintiff cannot establish a claim for pain and suffering pursuant to 59:9-2(d).
Steven Alesci v. Township of Wildwood, et. als. (Opinion)
Category:
Tort Claims Acts
Terms:
Dangerous Condition, Actual/Constructive Notice, Palpably Unreasonable
Summary:
The Plaintiff filed a Complaint under the TCA against the City of Wildwood, amongst other Defendants, alleging that the City was liable for injuries he sustained as a result of one vehicle. The Plaintiff alleged that a dangerous and hazardous condition existed on a street within the City, and that the dangerous condition caused him to loss control over his motorcycle and caused him to be thrown to the ground. The Trial Court granted Summary Judgment in favor of the City of Wildwood, holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish that a dangerous condition existed, failed to demonstrate the City had either actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, and that the City’s actions or inactions concerning the alleged dangerous condition was not palpably unreasonable.
Lynch
v. Thorwart (Brief)
Category:
Tort Claims Act Immunity
Terms:
Fatality; Jet ski; Failure to Enforce
Summary:
Brief in support of Motion for Summary Judgment regarding fatal Jet
Ski accident where Jet Ski riders were without certificate of
completion of boating safety course as needed according to City
Ordinance.
Michael
McDade,
et al. v. Rodolfo Siazon, et al. (Opinion)
Category:
Tort Claims Act/Notice of Claim
Terms:
Sidewalk Trip and Fall; Reasonable Diligence; Notice of Claim
Summary:
Supreme Court of N.J. Decision on a Summary Judgment Motion regarding
whether a Plaintiff who has failed to serve timely notice of claim
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, and has failed to file a motion for
leave to file a late notice in accordance with N.J.S.A.59:8-9, can
pursue a tort claim against a public entity. The Defendant’s
Summary Judgment Motion was granted because Plaintiff failed to act
with reasonable diligence to invoke the statutory procedure by which
a court determines whether the late filing of a notice of claim can
be excused.
Aupperle, et. al. v. City of North Wildwood, et. al. (Opinion)
Category: Tort Claims Act
Terms: Lifeguards, First Responder, Good Samaritan Act
Summary: Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County, under the Tort Claims Act against the City of North Wildwood, the North Wildwood Beach Patrol, and a lifeguard-employee for injuries sustained by the Plaintiff when she was struck in the face by a red rescue-torpedo which was swinging around when the lifeguard-employee was running through a crowded beach responding to an emergency. The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the Plaintiffs failed to present an expert opinion on the applicable standard of care and proper procedure for a first responder when responding to an emergency, immunity under the Good Samaritan Act, and vicarious liability. The Hon. J. Christopher Gibson, J.S.C., granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that Defendant were entitled to same because there exists no genuine issue of material fact, the lifeguard-employee was immune from liability under the Good Samaritan Act, and that it is proper to protect lifeguards and first responders in emergency situations for public policy reasons.
Terri Goodman, et. al. v. City of Margate, et. al. (Opinion)
Category: Tort Claims Act
Terms: Slip/Trip and Fall, Actual or Constructive Notice, Immunity, Public v. Private property
Summary: The Plaintiff filed a Complaint in United State District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, after she slipped and fell in the parking lot of the Shore Club Condominium in the City of Margate. The City of Margate was a named Defendant as the Plaintiff alleged that installation of a concrete pad by the City’s water department contributed to her trip and fall. The Hon. Joel Schneider, U.S.D.J., granted Summary Judgment in favor of the City of Margate, finding that there was no evidence that the City of Margate had any ownership or control over the area in which the Plaintiff fell. The Court further found that even if there was ownership or control over the area by the City, there was no evidence in the record that the City has actual or constructive notice of any such dangerous condition.