PERSONAL INJURY Law Office in Hackensack 201-646-3333

 

Hi, my name is Debilak and I use Rafael Gomez as my attorney with my accident case and so far I am very happy with the service.

THIS IS A SAMPLE OF HOW SOME ACCIDENT CASES ARE DECIDED BY THE NJ COURTS. OUR FIRM DID NOT PARTICIPATE AS COUNSEL IN THIS CASE. THIS IS MERELY A SAMPLE SUMMARY FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. PAST RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE OUTCOME. THE SELECTION OF AN ATTORNEY IS IMPORTANT. GIVE THIS MATTER CAREFUL THOUGHT. SEE OUR ABOUT PAGE FOR LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT DISCLAIMER. JANET HENEBEMA VS. DOMENICO RADDI, JR. (L-0964-07, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) On remand, and ten years after a serious car accident, defendants raised for the first time the affirmative defenses of N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10 (9-1-1 dispatcher immunity) and N.J.S.A. 59:5-4 (failure to provide police protection). We concluded that the judge erred by (1) failing to resolve whether defendants waived the new defenses; and (2) dismissing the complaint relying on Royster v. N.J. State Police, 439 N.J. Super. 554 (App. Div. 2015), aff'd as modified, 227 N.J. 482 (2017) (dismissing a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act). This case involves a misapplication of Royster v. N.J. State Police, 439 N.J. Super. 554, 561 (App. Div. 2015), aff'd as modified, 227 N.J. 482 (2017), which held that "the doctrine of state sovereign immunity preclude[d] [a] plaintiff's [Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)] claim, even though [the] defendants [had] not fully raise[d] that argument until their motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)." Plaintiff filed claims, not under the ADA, but rather, under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3, which unlike under the ADA, are not federal law claims. By enacting the TCA, the Legislature waived state sovereign immunity, subject to the statute's provisions. Plaintiff appeals from orders dated December 7, 2015 and January 19, 2016 entered on remand granting summary judgment to South Jersey Transportation Authority (SJTA) and the New Jersey State Police (NJSP) (collectively defendants). In support of their motions, defendants belatedly raised the affirmative defenses of N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10 (9-1-1 dispatcher immunity) and N.J.S.A. 59:5-4 (failure to provide police protection). Plaintiff maintains that the judge exceeded the scope of detailed remand instructions from this court and the Supreme Court, and he otherwise erred as a matter of law. In a TCA case, when a public entity substantially waits before raising the affirmative defenses of N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10 and N.J.S.A. 59:5-4, we hold that the judge must first determine whether defendants waived those defenses. That is so because waiver negates reliance on the defenses. If the judge concludes that a public entity timely raised, and has not waived these affirmative defenses, then the judge should address whether dispositive relief is appropriate. Here, the judge granted summary judgment before resolving whether defendants waived the affirmative defenses, even though defendants raised them for the first time on remand, which occurred ten years after the accident; those ten years included three years of extensive pre-trial litigation, a lengthy and expensive trial, an appeal to us, and an appeal to the Supreme Court. We conclude that defendants waived the new affirmative defenses, reverse the orders, and re-remand for a liability trial on an expedited basis due to the age of this case.