persoanl injury

Car Accidents Caused by Poor Roadway Maintenance

September 23, 2019 by Greg Sutphin Leave a Comment

Seeking Compensation under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act

When you’re driving defensively, it’s not just other drivers that can pose a risk. Roadway hazards, such as potholes, loose gravel, uneven pavement or poor drainage, can lead to loss of control and cause an accident. A roadway may be poorly designed, with a blind corner or a tight curve without proper banking.

Typically, when you suffer an injury because of the negligence or carelessness of another person, it’s a pretty straightforward process to bring a personal injury lawsuit to recover damages. However, when the at-fault party is a state or municipal employee or agency, the process is much more complicated. In those instances, you will have to follow the process established by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act.

Poorly Maintained Roads

Inadequate road maintenance is a fairly common cause of motor vehicle accidents. Some examples of the failure to keep roads in proper condition include:

Gravel or oil on the road
Potholes
Construction debris or equipment on the road, including cones, dirt piles and machines
Branches, trees or other foliage on the road
Malfunctioning or defective street signs or lights

Filing a Claim under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act

The New Jersey Tort Claims Act preserves a legal concept known as “sovereign immunity.” Under that legal principle, a governmental body is generally exempt from legal action. There are, however, some exceptions, which give private citizens the right to file a claim against the government. Public entities are responsible for injuries caused by a municipal employee if “within the scope of his employment in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.” That allows a private citizen to file a claim for losses suffered:

In a motor vehicle accident caused by a government employee who was on the job at the time of the crash
As a result of a dangerous property condition on state or municipal property, provided that appropriate government official were notified of the condition and did not remedy it

Contact Gregg A. Wisotsky, Partner at Javerbaum, Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC

I offer a free phone consultation to every prospective client. For a complimentary evaluation of your case, contact my office online or call me at 973-241-7468. I will come to your home or the hospital to meet with you, if necessary. All major credit cards are accepted.

The New Jersey Tort Claims Act—The Basics

September 10, 2019 by Greg Sutphin Leave a Comment

Your Right to File a Personal Injury Claim against the Government

In most instances, when you have been hurt in an accident because of the wrongful conduct of another party, it’s a relatively uncomplicated process to initiate and pursue legal action to recover damages. When the at-fault party is a government employee or agency, though, things are often not so simple.

In New Jersey, to bring legal action against the state or a local governmental worker or entity, you must follow the specific requirements of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (NJTCA). When you file a claim under the NJTCA, you need to include the following information:

Your name and address
The date, location and any "other circumstances of the occurrence" that gave rise to the claim
A general description of your losses, injuries and property damage
The name(s) of the municipal or state employees who caused the loss or injury
A statement of the amount of your losses

Note that you can recover compensation for pain and suffering, but you must show a “permanent loss of bodily function” or permanent dismemberment or disfigurement, with a minimum of $3,600 in medical expenses. It’s also important to understand that any damages covered by insurance will not be available in a claim under the NJTCA.

Unlike other types of personal injury claims, an action under the NJTCA must be filed within 90 days of the date of the accident. The state may then take up to 90 days to respond to your claim. A court may, upon request, grant an extension of the time to file for up to 12 months.

Contact Attorney Gregg A. Wisotsky—Partner at Javerbaum, Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC

Slips and Falls on Snow and Ice in New Jersey

December 27, 2017 by Greg Sutphin Leave a Comment

If you live in New Jersey, ice and snow are a part of your life in the winter months. A fresh snowfall can be a beautiful sight, a winter wonderland, but it can also pose a significant risk. Far too many people suffer needless injury in New Jersey winters when property owners fail to take reasonable steps to remove snow and ice from sidewalks, steps and parking lots.

Under New Jersey law, the owner of real property has a duty to monitor and maintain the premises in such way that it minimizes the risk of injury to anyone legally on the property. That duty can also extend to anyone who exercises control over the property, such as a property manager, landlord or tenant. It’s not an absolute duty — the exercise of care must only be reasonable.

When it comes to snow and ice on residential or commercial property in New Jersey, there are generally different standards based on the type of property. With a single-family private residence, there’s typically no duty to remove snow or ice or to warn about any risks associated with snow, ice or freezing rain. Why? Because most people don’t enter single family residential property for commercial purposes or to engage in activity that will provide a financial benefit to the homeowner. However, if the homeowner runs a business out of the home or if the homeowner takes action that makes the condition worse (pouring hot water on icy steps, for example), there can be liability.

With commercial property, you must typically show that the property owner either knew or should have known of the potential risk of injury due to ice, snow or other winter weather conditions and that the property owner failed to take reasonable steps to remedy the problem or warn potential visitors. There is an exception to this rule — if the nature of the business was such that the dangerous condition was reasonably foreseeable, there is no requirement that the property owner have actual notice of the risk.

Contact the law offices of Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq., Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC.

We offer a free phone consultation to every prospective client. For a complimentary evaluation of your case, contact our office online or call us at 973-898-0161. We will come to your home or the hospital to meet with you, if necessary. All major credit cards are accepted.

Skier to Skier Standard of Care is Recklessness

July 15, 2013 by Greg Sutphin

Robert Angland was skiing down a slope at Mountain Creek when suddenly he collided with William Tucker Brownlee who was snowboarding down the same path. Angland fell as a result of the accident and slid down the mountain. He was unconscious and laying by a concrete bridge near the slope by the time Brownlee found him. Angland was taken to a hospital and died days later with the doctors saying his injuries were consistent with his head having hit the concrete bridge. Angland v. Mountain Creek Resort, Inc., 2013 N.J. LEXIS 570.

Brownlee claimed that he and Angland collided into each other only after another person on the mountain cut Brownlee off and he was unable to regain control of his snowboard.

Angland’s estate sued Brownlee, maintaining that Brownlee acted negligently in violation of the New Jersey Ski Act and therefore was liable, in part, for Angland’s death. Brownlee disagreed, contending that the New Jersey Ski Act did not apply to incidents between skiers and that he could only be held liable if his conduct rose to the level of recklessness rather than the negligence standard of the Act.

Both the trial and appellate courts agreed with Angland that the NJ Ski Act did apply to incidents between skiers, not just to situations between skier and ski resort operator, and that the standard was negligence.

The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed. The Court found that the Ski Act does not apply between skiers, and the proper standard for this situation is recklessness, not negligence. However, the Act is not irrelevant. “A skier who violates one of the duties identified in the Ski Act, but who is merely negligent in doing so will not be liable to another skier; but a skier who violates one of those duties and does so recklessly will be liable to the other participant who is injured as a result.” Id. at 35.

This standard of recklessness is the standard used in common law for almost all recreational sports activities.

Contact Us Today