Accidents on Public Property

What’s required to be included in a Notice of Claim

You must file a Notice of Claim if you are intending on filing suit, as failure to do so can result in a bar of your claim. It must include:

1) Your name and post office address;
2) Any post office address to which notices to you should be sent;
3) The date, location, and circumstances of the incident which gives rise to the claim;
4) A general description of your injuries or the loss that occurred;
5) The name of the public entity and any known representatives that caused your injury; and
6) The amount of damages you are claiming.

Complying with the Notice of Claim requirement

New Jersey Courts have held a notice of claim, even in the absence of meeting the elements spelled out in N.J.S.A. §59:8-4, will be compliant with the Tort Claims Act if it is in “substantial compliance” with the statue. Newberry v. Twp. Of Pemberton, 319 N.J. Super. 671, 678-679 (App. Div. 1999) See Tuckey v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 236 N.J. Super. 221, 225. “Substantial compliance means that the notice has been given in a way, which though technically defective, substantially satisfies the purposes for which notices of claims are required.” Williams v. City of Elizabeth, 2010 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 931921 at 39-40 See Lebron v. Sanchez, 407 N.J. Super. 204, 216 (App. Div. 2009). A party presenting a non-confirming notice of claim must “show: (1) the lack of prejudice to the defending party; (2) a series of steps taken to comply with the statute involved; (3) general compliance with the purpose of the statute; (4) a reasonable notice of petitioner’s claim; and (5) a reasonable explanation why there was not strict compliance with the statute.” Lebron, 407 N.J. Super 216 See Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assocs., 178 N.J. 144, 151 (2003); Galik v. Clara Paas Med. Ctr., 167 N.J. 341, 353-354 (2001); Zamel v. Port of N.Y. Auth., 56 N.J. 1 (1970); McCarty v. Boulevard Comm'rs of Hudson Cty., 91 N.J.L. 137, 142 (1918), aff'd 92 N.J.L. 519 (E. & A.1918); Travis v. Highlands, 136 N.J.L. 199, 202 (1947); Ray v. City of Birmingham, 275 Ala. 332, (1963); Burmek v. Miller Brewing Co., 2 Wis. 2d 330 (1958); Brickell v. Kansas City, Mo., 364 Mo. 679 (1954); Perry v. City of High Point, 218 N.C. 714 (1940).

When you are hurt due to the actions or inactions of a public entity, contact Verp & Leddy immediately, so we may protect your rights. Their experienced attorneys will guide you through the process of filing a strong Notice of Claim, conducting pre-suit discovery, and ultimately filing a lawsuit, if necessary.

What Damages can you Recover Against a Public Entity?

As a general rule, neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for any interest prior to the entry of judgment. N.J.S.A. 59:9-2; Dorn v. Transport of New Jersey, 200 N.J. Super. 159 (App. Div. 1984). There are certain exceptions to this rule, which are inapplicable here.

As a general rule, punitive damages may not be awarded against a public entity. N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(c); Scott-Neal v. N.J. State Dep’t of Corr., 366 N.J. Super. 570 (App. Div. 2004). There are certain exceptions to this rule related to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12 (“LAD”), discussed further in this section.

Damages permitted against public entities are governed by the Tort Claims Act. The Act limits those damages that can ultimately be awarded. In addition, damages for pain and suffering in an action against a public entity or public employee are barred unless there is “permanent loss of a bodily function, permanent disfigurement or dismemberment” (the so-called verbal threshold) and the medical treatment expenses exceed $3,600 (the amount threshold). N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d). Both the verbal threshold and the amount threshold must be met to obtain damages for pain and suffering. This provision is intended to “preclude recovery for pain and suffering based on subjective evidence or minor incidents.” Collins v. Union County Jail, 150 N.J. 407, 413 (1997).

Claims for non-economic damages of pain and suffering and emotional distress are barred by the injury threshold. See Thigpen v. City of East Orange, 408 N.J. Super. 331, 344 (2009). If there is evidence of permanency, projected future medical expenses may be considered in determining whether the amount threshold has been met. See Reale v. Wayne, 132 N.J. Super. 100 (Law Div. 1975) (because of child’s tender years it was not yet certain what monies may have to be expended for her care).

Other damages may be recovered from the public entity even if the amount threshold, discussed above, is not met. Simply, the failure to satisfy the threshold merely precludes recovery from pain and suffering. A plaintiff may still recover for an objective permanent injury. See Peterson v. Edison Township Board of Education, 137 N.J. Super. 566 (App. Div. 1975) (student pushed down stairs at school suffered broken arm with permanent deformity entitled to recover for objective permanent injury, but not for pain and suffering when threshold was not met). Moreover, alleged permanent injuries that are merely subjective remain barred should the amount threshold not be met. Thorpe v. Cohen, 258 N.J. Super. 523 (App. Div. 1992).