Bryce Patrick v. City of Elizabeth

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2792-15T1
BRYCE PATRICK, an infant by
his Guardian ad litem,
KRISTAL DAWN LINT and KRISTAL
DAWN LINT, individually, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
AS REDACTED
April 24, 2017
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
APPELLATE DIVISION
v.
CITY OF ELIZABETH and ELIZABETH
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendants-Respondents.
______________________________
Submitted March 6, 2017 – Decided April 24, 2017
Before Judges Sabatino, Haas, and Currier.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket
No. L-4121-13.
Rinaldo and Rinaldo Associates, LLC,
attorneys for appellants (Matthew T.
Rinaldo, on the briefs).
La Corte, Bundy, Varady & Kinsella, attorneys
for respondent City of Elizabeth (Robert F.
Varady and Christina M. DiPalo, on the
brief).
Nirenberg & Varano, LLP, attorney for
respondent Elizabeth Board of Education
(Howard M. Nirenberg, of counsel; Sandra N.
Varano, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
CURRIER, J.A.D.
In this appeal, we are asked to address whether defendants
City of Elizabeth (City) and Elizabeth Board of Education (BOE)
are immune from liability under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act
(TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3, for injuries sustained by the
minor plaintiff as a result of a motor vehicle accident. After
a review of the contentions in light of the record and
applicable principles of law, we are satisfied that the grant of
summary judgment was correct as defendants are each entitled to
particular immunities under the TCA. We also discern no reason
to disturb the judge's decision to deny plaintiff a fourth
extension of discovery in the wake of his determination that
exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated.
We derive the facts from the summary judgment record.
Eight-year-old plaintiff Bryce Patrick was with several other
children crossing the street at an intersection near Brophy
Field in Elizabeth when he was struck by a motor vehicle.
Brophy Field is a municipal park that is located approximately a
block away from a public elementary school. On the day in
question, an unidentified motorist stopped to allow the children
to cross the street. As the children were crossing, another
motor vehicle passed the stopped car and struck Bryce. There is
2 A-2792-15T1
a "Watch for Children" sign posted on the street on which the
cars were driving.
I.
Plaintiff1 filed a complaint against the City and BOE2
alleging the area of the accident was a dangerous condition and
there was inadequate signage to warn motorists of the presence
of children.
All parties consented to an extension of the initial
discovery end date (DED). Thereafter, plaintiff requested three
additional extensions of discovery, the last setting an end date
of November 15, 2015. The September 4, 2015 order required
plaintiff to serve expert liability and medical reports by
October 14, 2015, with arbitration scheduled for November 19,
2015.
After plaintiff failed to provide a liability expert report
in compliance with the order, defendants filed a motion to bar
any forthcoming liability expert report. Plaintiff opposed the
motion, and cross-moved to extend discovery sixty days in order
to take the depositions of several City employees and a police
1 Bryce's mother, Kristal Dawn Lint, brought the claim on her
son's behalf as his guardian ad litem. She also alleged
individual claims. We refer to them collectively as plaintiff.
2 Plaintiff's claims against the driver of the motor vehicle that
struck him were resolved prior to the institution of suit.
3 A-2792-15T1
officer. Plaintiff asserted these depositions were necessary
for the completion of the liability expert's report. The
depositions were not scheduled to take place until October 16,
2015.
A certification presented by an attorney in plaintiff's
counsel's office further advised the court that lead counsel had
fallen on October 15, suffering a serious knee injury that was
confining him to his home. Plaintiff asserted there were
"exceptional and extraordinary circumstances" to warrant a
further extension of sixty days to complete depositions and
serve a liability expert report.
On November 6, 2015, Judge Mark P. Ciarrocca heard oral
argument on the motions. In addressing plaintiff's application
to extend discovery, the judge noted that discovery had
previously been extended three times. Pursuant to Rule 4:24-1,
discovery could only be extended upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances and the judge found that plaintiff had not
satisfied that standard. He noted that despite the many
extensions of discovery, counsel was still seeking to complete
fact witness depositions and obtain an expert report. Judge
Ciarrocca concluded: "The Court finds that under these
circumstances that the moving party has failed to make a showing
that there was diligence in pursuing discovery and has failed to
4 A-2792-15T1
make a showing that the circumstances surrounding the completion
of discovery are completely beyond the control of counsel and
the litigant." The judge further concluded that counsel's
recent unfortunate injury was not germane to the issue of
exceptional circumstances because the expert report had been due
prior to the date of counsel's fall. Therefore, the motion to
extend discovery was denied and defendants' motions to bar any
liability expert reports were granted.
II.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on November 20, 2015.
On December 2, plaintiff presented a motion for reconsideration
of the order barring its liability expert. Oral argument was
conducted on all of the motions on December 18. After a
discussion of the applicable law governing a motion for
reconsideration, Judge Ciarrocca found that plaintiff had not
provided "any new facts or any decisions that the Court either
overlooked or misapplied in denying . . . the prior application,
which the Court notes would have been the fourth extension of
the discovery end date." The judge reiterated his prior
findings that plaintiff had not established exceptional
circumstances and denied the motion.
In moving for summary judgment, the City asserted
immunities under several sections of the TCA. The City argued
5 A-2792-15T1
plaintiff had failed to prove the area was a dangerous condition
or that the City had any notice, actual or constructive, of a
dangerous condition. The City also argued that N.J.S.A. 59:4-5
provided immunity for a public entity's failure to provide
ordinary traffic signs and N.J.S.A. 59:4-4 was not applicable to
the City as liability under that provision only applied in
emergency situations.
Plaintiff asserted in opposition that this area required
additional signage, and as the area involved a school zone, it
inherently called for a higher safety standard of care. In
addition, plaintiff argued the City failed to follow the
national standards for traffic control devices as established by
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Traffic Manual).
Even if federal regulations were not applicable to the tort
liability issues, plaintiff argued she had established that the
area was a dangerous condition, and that the City was on notice
of the condition due to multiple accidents within that area in
the two years prior to the accident.
The BOE argued in support of its summary judgment motion
that it did not own, control, or maintain the roadway on which
the incident had occurred and it was not responsible for the
placement of traffic signs. Plaintiff responded that the BOE
6 A-2792-15T1
was responsible for school property, and therefore, it must
ensure the public road outside the school was likewise safe.
On February 1, 2016, Judge Ciarrocca granted summary
judgment in favor of defendants. In considering the claims
against the City, the judge found that plaintiff had failed to
provide any proofs of the existence of a dangerous condition
required under N.J.S.A. 59:4-2 to impose liability. There was
no authority presented that a violation of the Traffic Manual
would override the immunity granted under the TCA. The judge
also concluded that plaintiff had failed to sustain her burden
of establishing that the accident would not have occurred if
there was additional signage in the area.
Judge Ciarrocca also addressed the contentions against the
BOE and rejected them, finding there was no evidence to sustain
plaintiff's argument that the BOE owed plaintiff "a duty to
ensure the area outside of the school property was in a
reasonably safe condition." He further noted that the BOE did
not control the area nor did it have authority over the signage
placed there.
III.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the judge (1) erroneously
ruled that she failed to prove the existence of a dangerous
7 A-2792-15T1
condition and (2) incorrectly barred her liability expert
report. We disagree and affirm.
We review a grant of summary judgment under the same
standard as the motion judge. Rowe v. Mazel Thirty, LLC, 209
N.J. 35, 41 (2012). We must determine whether there are any
genuine issues of material fact when the evidence is viewed in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 38,
41. "The inquiry is 'whether the evidence presents a sufficient
disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so
one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.'"
Liberty Surplus Ins. v. Nowell Amoroso, P.A., 189 N.J. 436, 445-
46 (2007) (quoting Brill v. Guardian Life Ins., 142 N.J. 520,
536 (1995)). "[T]he legal conclusions undergirding the summary
judgment motion itself [are reviewed] on a plenary de novo
basis." Estate of Hanges v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins., 202 N.J.
369, 385 (2010).
A.
Plaintiff contends that the trial judge did not properly
consider critical facts presented as proof of the existence of a
dangerous condition. Plaintiff alleges that the lack of speed
limit signs and school zone signage in this particular spot as
well as faded crosswalks, combined with the increased traffic
flow from the Jersey Gardens Mall, created a dangerous
8 A-2792-15T1
condition. As such, plaintiff asserts that the City and the BOE
knew or should have been aware of this dangerous condition, and
were therefore liable for the child's injuries.
Public entity liability in New Jersey under the TCA is
limited. Polzo v. Cty. of Essex, 209 N.J. 51, 55 (2012).
Generally, a public entity is "immune from tort liability unless
there is a specific statutory provision imposing liability."
Kahrar v. Borough of Wallington, 171 N.J. 3, 10 (2002). Even if
liability exists, "[c]ourts must 'recognize[] the precedence of
specific immunity provisions,' and ensure 'the liability
provisions of the Act will not take precedence over specifically
granted immunities.'" Parsons v. Mullica Twp. Bd. of Educ., 440
N.J. Super. 79, 95 (App. Div. 2015) (alteration in original)
(quoting Weiss v. N.J. Transit, 128 N.J. 376, 380 (1992)).
N.J.S.A. 59:4-2 provides in pertinent part that
[a] public entity is liable for injury
caused by a condition of its property if the
plaintiff establishes that the property was
in dangerous condition at the time of the
injury, that the injury was proximately
caused by the dangerous condition, that the
dangerous condition created a reasonably
foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which
was incurred, and that . . . a public entity
had actual or constructive notice of the
dangerous condition under section 59:4-3 a
sufficient time prior to the injury to have
taken measures to protect against the
dangerous condition.
[N.J.S.A. 59:4-2.]
9 A-2792-15T1
N.J.S.A. 59:4-1 states that a dangerous condition "means a
condition of property that creates a substantial risk of injury
when such property is used with due care in a manner in which it
is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used." A public
entity will have constructive notice of a dangerous condition
under N.J.S.A. 59:4-3(b) if "the condition had existed for such
a period of time and was of such an obvious nature that the
public entity, in the exercise of due care, should have
discovered the condition and its dangerous character."
Liability will not be imposed "upon a public entity for a
dangerous condition of its public property if the action the
entity took to protect against the condition or the failure to
take such action was not palpably unreasonable." N.J.S.A. 59:4-
2. "[P]alpably unreasonable implies behavior that is patently
unacceptable under any circumstance and that . . . must be
manifest and obvious that no prudent person would approve of its
course of action or inaction." Holloway v. State, 125 N.J. 386,
403-04 (1991) (citation omitted).
Here, Judge Ciarrocca noted that plaintiff failed to
present any proof of an actionable dangerous condition. In her
brief, plaintiff references "the high number of accidents that
occurred only in the two years prior to this accident" as
constructive notice to defendants of a dangerous condition.
10 A-2792-15T1
However, a review of the police reports provided by plaintiff
reveals no similar accidents reported in this area.3
Plaintiff also argues that the lack of signage at the spot
of the accident denoting a school zone, or children crossing,
was a dangerous condition for which both defendants bear
liability. We reject this argument for similar reasons. There
was no evidence in the record of complaints to the City
regarding this area, nor were there any proofs presented to
conclude that defendants were palpably unreasonable in not
placing additional signage in the area around the school, apart
from the children crossing sign that was further down the street
closer to the school. The decision of what type of signage and
where to place it is within the discretion accorded to a
municipality and is immunized under N.J.S.A. 59:2-3(a).4
3 Only one incident is reported involving a pedestrian; in that
report, a car making a left turn did not see a pedestrian
pushing a stroller in the crosswalk and struck the stroller.
This incident does not bear any resemblance to the facts before
us and would not place defendants on notice of a dangerous
condition in this area.
4 "A public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from the
exercise of judgment or discretion vested in the entity."
N.J.S.A.
59:2-3(a).
11 A-2792-15T1
Regarding the issue of signage, traffic signals, or warning
signs, Judge Ciarrocca also noted the immunity accorded to
defendants under N.J.S.A. 59:4-5, which provides that a public
entity is not liable for "an injury caused by the failure to
provide ordinary traffic signals, signs, markings or similar
devices." (emphasis added). Plaintiff argues that a sign in a
school zone is not an "ordinary" sign subject to immunity under
the statute because school zones require a higher standard of
care. Therefore, plaintiff contends that the failure to place a
sign in a school zone should be analyzed solely under dangerous
condition principles pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:4-2.5 We disagree.
Although N.J.S.A. 59:4-5 does not expressly define the term
"ordinary," we have previously considered its definition in this
context and noted the dictionary definition of "regular, usual,
normal, common, often reoccurring and not characterized by
peculiar or unusual circumstances." Spin Co. v. Md. Cas. Co.,
136 N.J. Super. 520, 524 (Law Div. 1975) (citing Black's Law
Dictionary 1249 (4th ed. 1957)). Nothing was presented that the
roadway in question would not fit within this definition of
"ordinary."
5 Plaintiff does not contend that defendants were liable under
N.J.S.A. 59:4-4 for a failure to place emergency signs or
signals in the area.
12 A-2792-15T1
In addressing plaintiff's argument that a school zone
imposes a special burden on defendants, we note that when the
Legislature has chosen to impose a higher standard of care in a
school zone, it has done so explicitly. We note the examples of
increased penalties for driving while intoxicated, see N.J.S.A.
39:4-50, and enhanced charges for distributing or possessing
controlled dangerous substances within a school zone, see
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7. There is no such differentiation provided in
the TCA, and therefore, no evidence of such a legislative
intention.
In lacking such intention, we decline to carve out an
exception for liability under the TCA for signage in a school
zone or to denote signs in a school zone as anything but
"ordinary." We have previously considered, and rejected,
whether there should be a "special relationship exception" to
the TCA. In Macaluso v. Knowles, 341 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div.
2001), a child was killed when he ran out into the street from
between illegally parked cars in front of a school. Id. at 113.
There, the plaintiff argued that the failure to enforce the
parking laws and provide emergency signs and markings rendered
the municipality liable. Id. at 115. The plaintiffs further
contended that a special relationship existed to negate the
TCA's immunities. Id. at 116. In considering the exception, we
13 A-2792-15T1
stated that the Legislature "rejected the concept of a statute
that imposed liability with specific exceptions . . . .
[Instead], 'public entities are immune from liability unless
they are declared to be liable by enactment.'" Id. at 117
(alteration in original). Because the initial consideration is
whether an immunity applies, we held that there is no special
relationship exception to the TCA. Ibid.
We apply a similar rationale here and are satisfied that
defendants were immunized from liability under N.J.S.A. 59:4-5
because the determination as to the advisability or necessity of
a particular sign or warning device at any particular place
requires the exercise of discretion. "N.J.S.A. 59:4-5 simply
specifies one particular type of discretionary activity to which
immunity attaches." Aebi v. Monmouth Cty. Highway Dep't., 148
N.J. Super. 430, 433 (App. Div. 1977) (finding that "N.J.S.A.
59:4-5 is entirely consistent with N.J.S.A. 59:2-3
immunizing public entities from liability for injury caused by
an exercise of judgment or discretion vested in the entity").
A review of New Jersey's Motor Vehicle and Traffic Laws
reinforces the Legislature's intention that the installation of
traffic signs remain a discretionary function of municipalities.
See N.J.S.A. 39:4-98 ("Appropriate signs giving notice of the
speed limits . . . may be erected if the commissioner or the
14 A-2792-15T1
municipal or county authorities, as the case may be, so
determine they are necessary.") (emphasis added); See also
N.J.S.A. 39:4-8.10(b)
([A] municipality . . . may . . . construct
traffic calming measures where appropriate,
which may include, but are not limited to,
speed humps on streets under municipal or
county jurisdiction with a posted speed of
30 mph or less and which have fewer than
3,000 vehicles per day when any road
construction project or repair of a street
set forth in this subsection is undertaken
and located within 500 feet of that street
is a school or any property used for school
purposes.)
[(Emphasis added).]
The use of the word "may" in both provisions suggests that this
authority rests within the discretion of a municipality. There
is no genuine issue that the City misapplied its discretion in
this case in not situating an additional sign in front of the
park, having already placed one in front of the school farther
down the street. Defendant BOE, meanwhile, is not a
municipality.
B.
As to the BOE, plaintiff concedes the Board does not own,
control, or maintain the roadway but alleges it still had a
duty, because of the park's proximity to school property, to
"use reasonable care to construct, design and maintain the
aforesaid area in a safe and suitable condition for use so that
15 A-2792-15T1
persons traversing said area . . . might use [the] area
[safely]." Plaintiff argues that the BOE's knowledge that the
park would be used at times that schools were closed rendered it
liable and negated any immunity.
To impose liability under the TCA, there must be ownership
of the pertinent property. N.J.S.A. 59:4-2 provides in part
that a "public entity is liable for injury caused by a condition
of its property." Public property is defined as "real or
personal property owned or controlled by the public entity."
N.J.S.A. 59:4-1(c). It is undisputed that the BOE did not own
the roadway where this accident occurred. It therefore, cannot
be held liable for property owned by another entity that
contains an allegedly dangerous condition. See Brothers v.
Borough of Highlands, 178 N.J. Super. 146 (App. Div. 1981)
(rejecting appellant's attempt to extend liability under the TCA
to property not owned by the municipality).
Finally, plaintiff has presented no proofs to support her
contention that the BOE was required to ensure that the City
installed proper school area signage. Even if such proofs were
to exist, the BOE was entitled to immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:4-5
as discussed, supra.
[At the court's direction, the published
version of this opinion omits Section IV
concerning the discovery extension issue and
16 A-2792-15T1
resultant barring of expert reports. R.
1:36-2(a).]
We discern no abuse of discretion or misapplication of the
law in Judge Ciarrocca's refusal to further extend the discovery
period in this case.6
Affirmed.
6 We note, without further comment, that an expert opinion in
this matter is not likely to have materially affected the trial
judge's legal analysis and our affirmance of the applicable
immunities granted to defendants under the TCA that serve to
negate their liability to plaintiff under these circumstances.
17 A-2792-15T1