 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Velez v. City of Jersey City6/29/2004
The Legislature recognizes the inherently unfair and inequitable results that occur in the strict application of the traditional doctrine of sovereign immunity. On the other hand the Legislature recognizes that while a private entrepreneur may readily be held liable for negligence within the chosen ambit of his activity, the area within which government has the power to act for the public good is almost without limit and therefore government should not have the duty to do everything that might be done. Consequently, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of this State that public entities shall only be liable for their negligence within the limitations of this ct and in accordance with the fair and uniform principles established herein. All of the provisions of this ct should be construed with a view to carry out the above legislative declaration.
[N.J.S.A. 59:1-2.]
The Act "'is dispositive, with respect to causes of action in tort accruing on and after [July 1, 1972], of the nature, extent and scope of state and local tort liability and the procedural requisites for prosecuting tort claims against governmental agencies.'" Wright v. State, 169 N.J. 422, 435 (2001) (quoting Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 17.1 on R. 4:5-4 (2001)). Prior to filing a complaint, a plaintiff must submit a notice of claim to the public entity within ninety days of the claim's accrual, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8a, and must file suit within two years after the claim's accrual, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8b. The notice must include the name of the public entity, and the name of the employee or employees causing the injury, if known. N.J.S.A. 59:8-4e. " he notice [requirements are] triggered by the occurrence of injury and [notice] must be filed in order for a complaint to be lodged against the public entity." Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111, 121 (2000).
The purposes of the notice requirements are:
(1) to allow the public entity at least siX months for administrative review with the opportunity to settle meritorious claims prior to the bringing of suit; (2) to provide the public entity with prompt notification of a claim in order to adequately investigate the facts and prepare a defense; (3) to afford the public entity a chance to correct the conditions or practices which gave rise to the claim; and (4) to inform the State in advance as to the indebtedness or liability that it may be expected to meet.
[Id. at 121-22 (internal quotations and citations omitted).]
In 1992, this Court held that various protections of the Act, including the notice provisions, did not apply to actions against public employees. Chatman v. Hall, 128 N.J. 394 (1992).
In Chatman, the Court first observed that the Act's language created "the apparent anomaly that public employees may be exposed to greater liability than their public employers." Id. at 402-03. While noting that a public entity would not be liable for the negligence action presented there, the Chatman Court held that "under the ... public employees owe a duty to members of the public to protect against the dangerous condition of public property and that such employees are not immune from suit under the 'inspection' immunities of the Act."
Ibid. After identifying the appropriate negligence standards applicable to public employees, id. at 412-18, the Court then dealt specifically with the notice requirements, id. at 418-20.
The Court determined that the notice provisions were inapplicable to actions against public employees and that such actions were governed by the ordinary statute of limitations. Id. at 419-20.
Following the Chatman decision, the Legislature amende
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 New Jersey Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|