In the State of New Jersey, the owner of an automobile may be responsible for another's accident under two separate theories of liability. The first is called "respondeat superior". This is where the driver of a vehicle is carrying out business for the vehicle's owner and is involved in an accident. This would be the case where an employee is driving an employer's car for business purposes. Despite the fact that the employee was operating the vehicle, the employer would also be responsible for any damages.

The second theory is called "negligent entrustment". Basically, this theory is based upon the owner's own negligence for allowing another individual to operate their vehicle when the owner has reason to know that the other individual is irresponsible or has a greater propensity to operate the vehicle improperly given the owner's knowledge of prior conduct. For instance, if you allow an individual with a suspended license for 14 speeding violations to operate your car and they are involved in a high speed collision, it is likely that you will have some responsibility for the happening of that accident.

An Appellate Court of New Jersey recently discussed these theories of liability and a potential cause of action in the case of Jafar v. Elrac Inc. There, two teenagers were struck and killed by the driver of a vehicle who claimed that his company transferred him to an outside sales job despite the fact that the company had full and complete knowledge of his drinking problem. Thus, the theory was asserted that the employer should not have given this individual an outside sales job because it was foreseeable that he would be operating a motor vehicle and, with his drinking problem, may be operating that motor vehicle in an intoxicated state. Therefore, it was alleged, that the company was negligent in its own right for making this outside sales transfer.

The Court dismissed the claim against the employer not on the legal theory but, instead, on the facts of the case. There was no indication in the facts of the case that the employer knew that its employee was drunk on the night in question or that it had the ability to control his actions that evening. Based on those facts, the Court could not find liability.

It is important to note that the argument in favor of liability in this matter was a valiant attempt at stretching the present state of the law. In this regard, under different facts, it is likely that a court could find liability against an employer if that employer knowingly places an employee into a situation where it is foreseeable that the employee may cause injury to others. Obviously, in order to expand upon current law, you will require services of a trained and qualified attorney who can properly evaluate the facts of your case.

A recent flurry of commuter or tour bus accidents raises various issues with regard to passenger rights and obligations after the accident occurs. Specifically, there are issues concerning notice requirements and medical bills that a layperson may not be aware of after being involved in such an accident, but that an attorney would.

As you may know from our website or prior blogs, any time an individual is injured in a motor vehicle accident, that persons' automobile insurance coverage will be responsible to pay for that person's medical bills as long as they are reasonable and related to the motor vehicle accident. However, most, if not, all motor vehicle insurance policies will have a specific exclusion of medical bills incurred as a result of injury while you are being transported in a bus or other livery conveyance. Accordingly, if you are injured in a bus accident, it may be most prudent to attempt to have your medical bills paid by your automobile insurance carrier and, when declined, utilize your primary health insurance coverage. If you do not have health insurance, it is important to seek legal advice so that an attorney may determine whether or not the insurance coverage on the bus has policy provisions, which would pay for medical bills in the event of personal injury sustained in an accident.

In any event, should you have any questions concerning the payment of medical bills after being injured as a passenger on a bus, you should contact an attorney that has experience in personal injury and insurance coverage.

In addition to issues concerning medical bills, there may also be issues concerning notice requirements. For instance, if you are traveling on a New Jersey Transit Bus, New Jersey Transit is considered a subdivision of the State of New Jersey, and, as such, you would be entitled to place New Jersey Transit on notice within 90 days of your accident if you have sustained injuries and intend to sue.

Again, it is imperative that you contact an attorney immediately should you be involved in any accident of this sort and you suffer any sort of injury. Legal recourse presents various issues that require analysis in order to determine whether or not you are able to recover compensatory damages or coverage for medical care. Call an attorney who has the experience and the knowledge to help you get through the process.

A man who was left in the Pacific Ocean while scuba diving recently was awarded $1.68 million by a Los Angeles County jury. The California man filed a lawsuit against the scuba diving charter company that negligently left him in the ocean approximately 12 miles offshore. The claim revealed that the charter boat left him at the first dive site and then proceeded to a second dive site approximately 7 miles from his location in the water. Fortunately, a passing boat later picked him. This situation, unlike the situation in Open Water, turned out to be a happy ending in that he was ultimately rescued. The man's ordeal lost at sea lasted approximately 3 hours.

In that New Jersey is a shore state bordering the Atlantic Ocean, it would not be far fetched that such an incident could occur in the waters off New Jersey. Clearly, any charter boat or dive company has a duty and obligation to ensure all of the divers it brings out are fully accounted for before returning to shore or moving onward. In this regard, it is incumbent upon such companies to have an accounting system in place as a way to account for those that have gone overboard and under the surface. In our opinion, the failure of a charter company to have such an accounting system would not only constitute negligence but gross negligence which would most likely warrant punitive damages.

If you or members of your family are injured or mistreated by a charter company, diving, boating or otherwise, or left at sea or in the wilderness, it is important to contact an attorney to determine the extent of your rights.

A recent unreported New Jersey Appellate Division decision reveals that a breach of a duty of care does not always give rise to liability in a negligence claim. In Ocampo v. Famco, the Appellate Division rejected a plaintiff's case wherein a sleepwalking 16 year old fell out of a 2nd story window with a nonfunctioning lock, finding that it was not reasonable for a jury to conclude that such an accident was foreseeable under the circumstances.

A viable cause of action based in negligence requires the following elements: 1. a duty to the plaintiff; 2. the breach of a duty; 3. proximate causation; and 4. damages. In the case involving the 16 year old, there is no doubt that the defendant landlord had a duty to properly maintain the subject apartment, including the window lock. Further, there was no question that the defendant landlord failed to comply with this duty by failing to ensure that the lock was functioning. Unfortunately, the plaintiff was unable to show proximate causation. Basically, under New Jersey law, proximate causation is based, in part, on the foreseeability. In this regard, an injury or damages will not be considered "proximately caused" by another's breach of duty unless a jury can conclude that such damages are "reasonably foreseeable" under the circumstances.

In the above referenced case, the Appellate Division found that because the youngest person residing in the apartment was 16 years old, a jury could not possibly conclude that one would fall out a second story window due to a nonfunctioning lock. In other words, the Appellate Division concluded that it was not foreseeable that someone 16 years older would fall out of 2nd story window due to a nonfunctioning lock.

We disagree with the Appellate Division's holding in this regard! It is just as foreseeable that an "incapacitated" 16 year old could fall out of a 2nd story window as a two or three year old child. "Incapacitated" could include a sleepwalker, a mentally incapacitated person, or someone on prescription or over the counter medication, or under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. Is it not foreseeable that 16 year old, who is the youngest resident in the apartment, could be incapacitated under one of the above theories? We think so. Would the landlord be responsible if the neighbor's 3 year old had fallen out of the window instead? We think so. In our view, what is and is not foreseeable, as far as issues of proximate cause are concerned, should be left to the sound discretion of a jury, and as such, we believe the appellate division erred in dismissing this plaintiff's case.

In these types of cases, only an expert, experienced attorney should be retained in order to protect your rights and pursue your interests to the fullest extent the law allows, and to get the justice you deserve.

Over 500,000 Do-It-Yourself Books have been recalled by the publisher, Oxmoor House Home Improvement, due to the inclusion of improper wiring instructions in a recent edition that could lead to personal injury or significant property damage. The Consumer Products Safety Commission announced the recall for various books sold nationwide in the U.S. between 1955-2005. Apparently, if properly followed, the faulty wiring instructions could cause serious electric shock or shorting of electric circuits thereby causing fire.

Obviously, in the case of recalls, it is important to ensure that you, as a consumer, remove the faulty items, such as books, cars, toys, etc., from your home or otherwise have the faulty items repaired so as to avoid serious personal injury or serious property damage. Often times, such recalls are brought to the attention of the Consumer Product Safety Commission through litigation, wherein a plaintiff claims serious injuries or serious property damage resulting from a defective item.

Obviously, as set forth on our firm's website and in prior areas of our blog, the manufacturers of any item put forth into the stream of commerce have a duty to ensure that the items are safe and fit for its intended use and purposes. In this case, the "product defect" lay within the pages of a handyman's do-it-yourself book, and wouldn't cause damage to anyone unless and until the end user followed the specific faulty instructions. However, despite the fact that the "product" itself, the book, was not in any way defective in a way that caused injury, the instructions contained therein were, and as such, the product was defective.

If you believe you are in possession of a defective product, whether it is defective by design or manufacturing defect, it is important firstly, to seek treatment if you or someone close to you was injured as a result of that product. Property damage should be documented and photographed. Of course, you should immediately preserve the product for inspection by an attorney or an engineer to determine whether any such injury or damage was caused by the product itself or its misuse. It is crucial that an attorney skilled and experienced in this area of law be sought immediately if you may have been injured or suffered property damage as a result of a particular product.

The Kansas City Star reported on October 4, 2010 that a woman has filed a lawsuit against two former priests in Kansas City, claiming that the two priests "sexually abused" her over 30 years ago. The woman, now 49, had apparently repressed the painful memory of the abuse until last year. Filing of such a personal injury lawsuit generally raises issues involving statute of limitations, or filing deadlines. This complex area of the law can be successfully navigated such that a plaintiff's interests are served to the fullest extent of the law by an attorney who has experience.

In New Jersey, the statute of limitations for a sexual assault case like the one filed in Kansas City above, is generally 2 years from the date of the actual assault. However, New Jersey recognizes that statues of limitations may be tolled by the "discovery rule," and further, that the statute of limitations may be tolled when the plaintiff is suffering from a disability which would prevent him or her from filing suit within the time limitations.

The "discovery rule" will toll a statute of limitations for the period of time that the plaintiff is unaware that he or she sustained an injury or unaware that a specific injury was caused by someone else's wrongdoing. Generally, the usual case in which the case the discovery rule would apply would be medical malpractice where a doctor leaves an instrument in a patient. The patient may suffer symptoms as a result of the foreign object immediately after the surgery, but not be aware of the foreign object's presence until many years later; more than 2 years after the surgery. Under those circumstances, although the symptoms of the injury were known to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not aware that someone else's actions negligence caused the injury until the object is detected.

In another example, the "discovery rule" would apply where a potential wrongful act was known but where the damages from that wrongful act were not discovered until well after the applicable statute of limitations. An example of this would be where there is an exposure to a toxic chemical, but that the symptoms and injury do not expose themselves until more than 2 years after the exposure takes place. In this scenario, the statute of limitations would be tolled until such time that the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that their injuries were related to the toxic exposure.

In addition to the above, New Jersey law states that a statute of limitations will not run against a minor or incompetent, meaning that someone is under a disability that prevents them from being aware of their legal rights or preventing them from exercising their legal rights. Therefore, generally, statutes of limitations for injuries sustained by minors will not toll until that minor's 20th birthday, because that would be 2 years after the minor's "disability" is removed.

With regard to the sexual abuse by priests and others many years ago, plaintiffs are able to file these suits based on either one or both of the above referenced statute of limitations tolling mechanisms. In some cases, the plaintiff will argue that they were not aware of their damages or had otherwise repressed memory or awareness of the sexual act until such time that it was ultimately revealed through psychiatric or psychological treatment. Other plaintiffs will argue that the emotional distress that they suffered at the hands of the molester caused an emotional disability that prevented them from filing suit or being aware of their legal rights within the applicable statute of limitations. Under either scenario, the standard for proving the disability or tolling of the statute of limitations is a great one, and an attorney must take great care to do it the properly. Accordingly, it is best that expert legal counsel be retained as soon as possible in the event that you or someone close to you finds them in such a situation.

One of the most frequent questions we are asked by our clients in motor vehicle cases, is "Why does my insurance company have to pay my medical bills?" In this regard, clients are generally upset by the fact that the car accident may have been the other person's fault, but that their own insurance company has to "foot the bill" for their treatment. Our clients are concerned that their insurance premiums will go up because a claim is being made against their policy, even though the accident was not their fault.

In New Jersey, medical bill payment related to injuries sustained in a car accident is governed by statute, specifically NJSA 39:6A-4 et.seq. New Jersey is considered a "no-fault" state when it comes to automobile insurance. Basically, the term "no-fault" means that your own insurance pays your medical bills, regardless of fault. The purpose and reason behind "no-fault" insurance is to ensure that the injured party receives immediate and appropriate medical care, as soon as practical and possible after the car accident. Prior to New Jersey becoming a "no-fault" state, and in other states where "no-fault" doesn't exist, issues of liability often prevent an injured party from obtaining necessary and appropriate medical treatment soon after the accident. For instance, if a person is injured in a car accident in an intersection governed by a traffic light, both parties may claim that they had the green light and are blameless. Accordingly, although one party needs medical attention for their injuries soon after the accident, neither of the insurance companies would bear responsibility for that treatment until a judge or jury could determine that their client was at fault for the accident. Thus, without appropriate medical insurance in place, doctors would not be in a position to render such treatment.

Under New Jersey's "no-fault" scheme, medical treatment is available immediately after the accident because the doctors know that coverage will exist regardless of whomever is determined to be at fault. Obviously, in the event you are injured in a car accident and seek medical treatment, it is important to provide your doctor with copies of your own insurance policy information, including the name of the company, policy number and a claims telephone number, wherever possible. Of course, if your claim for medical treatment is ever declined by your insurance company, or if you are involved in a car accident at all, it is important to seek an experienced attorney who can provide you with the proper guidance, and pursue your interests to the fullest extent of the law.

The recent unreported Appellate Division case of Dumont v. New Jersey Devils allows us to discuss the appropriate standard to be applied when one is injured as a spectator at a sporting event when being struck by a ball or puck used in the event. In Dumont, the judge threw out the plaintiff's case because, although the plaintiff was truck by the puck which left the ice during the hockey game, she was not within the area of the stadium where pucks would constitute a known or foreseeable hazard. In Dumont, the plaintiff argued that her cause of action was not based upon general negligence theories but on the fact that the New Jersey Devils failed to offer her the option of changing seats because of the risk of flying hockey pucks. On that record, the court dismissed her claim.

In general, the prevailing rule in New Jersey is that a sports facility operator has a limited duty of care, which has two components. Firstly, the operator must provide protected seating, which is "sufficient for those spectators who may be reasonably anticipated to desire protected seats on an ordinary occasion." Secondly, the operator must provide protection for spectators in "the most dangerous sections" of the arena. Schneider v. American Hockey and Ice Skating Center, Inc., 342 N.J. Super. 527 (App Div 2001) The second component of the limited liability is ordinarily satisfied by the owner of the arena or stadium by placing screens behind home plate in a baseball arena and behind the hockey goals at a hockey game.

However, there are obviously multiple ways a spectator may get injured at an athletic event, other than being struck by a ball or puck. Each case must be evaluated on its independent facts. For instance, may arenas attempt to limit their liability through the use of language on the back of tickets permitting entry into the sporting event. In the advent "paperless" tickets, these issues have not been readily resolved by the courts. Accordingly, in the event of an injury sustained at a sporting event as a spectator, it is important for the injured person to get in touch with an expert personal injury attorney, who can properly identify the issues and pursue the best course of legal recovery for you.

Two cases recently decided by New Jersey's Appellate Division addressed a statute which was previously thought to provide immunity to 911 operators engaged in the course of their employment. The Appellate Division in Massachi v. City of Newark Police Department and Wilson v. City of Jersey City held that 911 operators and dispatchers could be held liable for injuries sustained or proximately cause by their failure to adhere to established protocols and guidelines. In Massachi, a female student was abducted directly outside the Seton Hall University Campus in South Orange, New Jersey. Two of her friends immediately called 911 to report the abduction. The 911 operator failed to follow the appropriate departmental procedures and guidelines in that although she put the information into the 911 computer system, she failed to note the last known location of the abductor's car, failed to note that the car was in motion, failed to record the vehicle's path of travel and mis-identified the car as a Chevy Blazer as opposed to a Plymouth Blazer. Further, she failed to keep the person reporting the crime on the phone to enable to provide an update to the responding unit.

In addition to the above, two off-duty Essex County Sheriff's Officers also witnessed the abduction and also called 911. The 911 operator that they spoke with ran the license plate of the abductor's vehicle and printed out the name and address of the vehicle's owner. Unfortunately, he failed to issue a general alert to all police units in neighboring municipalities and also failed to contact the police in the municipality where the abductor resided. It was the plaintiff's decedent's claim that the girl who was abducted was ultimately murdered due to the fact that the police units could not properly respond as a result of the 911 dispatcher's failure to comply with guidelines.

Importantly, a New Jersey statute (N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10) provides various immunities to phone carriers and dispatchers concerning the failure of the 911 system. The Appellate Division under the two cases before it, specifically held that the above-referenced statute does not afford immunity to the 911 emergency communication center or its employees where they negligently render 911 services including dispatching police to an incorrect location, failing to keep the caller on the line to update the police of the location of the perpetrator and for failing to broadcast an alert to surround municipalities. Accordingly, although there is immunity for the failure of the system to work, there will be no immunity for 911 operators or dispatchers where they fail to follow protocol.

In the event you or a family member believes you have suffered injuries as a result of improper actions of a 911 operator, it is imperative that you seek the advice of a qualified personal injury attorney.

The Boston Herald hasreported that a lawsuit was recently filed against Disney World by a Pennsylvania woman who claims she was improperly touched and groped by a Donald Duck character while she was on vacation in Disney World.

The plaintiff's lawsuit claims that she sought an autograph from Donald Duck while on Disney World's property and, instead of obtaining the autograph, she was groped and molested by the costumed bird. The lawsuit alleges that Disney World, through its employees, were guilty of "negligence, battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress." It is not known the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries as a result of the incident.

Importantly, while the nature of this lawsuit seems bizarre, the plaintiff's cause of action is viable. The law in the State of New Jersey and in most jurisdictions reveals that a lawsuit based on "assault and battery" will be viable if there is any "non-consensual" touching by one person of another. Although "assault and battery" conjures imaging of being punched, kicked, attacked or beat up with some inanimate object, it is simply defined as any non-consensual contact between one person and another that causes harm. Thus, although we do not know the nature and extent of the plaintiff's harm caused by Donald Duck, one can imagine "uninvited" or "non-consensual" contact between a person in a Disney costume and a park visitor merely seeking an autograph or photograph of the character. It should be noted that the varying degrees of "damages" in such suits range from mere emotional distress to physical injuries. Of course, juries and courts will perceive such cases differently depending upon the nature and extent of such damages.

If you believe that you have suffered any type of damages as a result of someone's improper or non-consensual touching, it is important for you to seek the advice of a qualified personal injury attorney to properly assess the nature and extent of both liability and your damages to determine whether or not a viable case exists in which you could obtain compensation for pain and suffering.

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently decided a case wherein it held that waivers of liability in health club contracts and gym membership contracts are valid and enforceable. In Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, LLC, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's case because the contract that the contract signed with the defendant health club contained a "waiver of liability" and, as such, she was unable to be compensated for her pain and suffering, disability and impairment and loss of enjoyment of life for injuries sustained while exercising at the health club.

In the above-referenced case, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant health club to utilize the health club's premises, machines and staff in exchange for a monthly payment. Contained within the contract that the plaintiff signed was a paragraph which purported to prevent the health club from being responsible for any and all injuries sustained by the plaintiff (or any users of the health club) while at the health club or using their facilities. Although contracts of this type have existed for many years, it was generally the long standing rule in the State of New Jersey that parties to a contract could not obtain a waiver of liability for their own negligent acts. For instance, such contracts were upheld if an individual was hurt in the health club or suffered, for instance, a heart attack, while exercising where the injury was in no way related to the general negligence of the health club facility. However, liability against the health club would generally be upheld where the health club's actual negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.

In this recent case, the Supreme Court basically changed and clarified that long standing rule and concluded that such waivers of liability are fully enforceable even where the health club's alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. For instance, in this Supreme Court case, the plaintiff was engaging in a spinning class when the handlebars on the spin bike became loose causing her to fall and sustain serious personal injury. The allegations were that the handlebars were not properly secured by the class instructor. As such, it was the health club's staff's negligence which proximately causes the plaintiff's injury.

The Court held that such a plaintiff may only maintain suit against the health club if it can be shown that the health club's behavior was reckless, intentional or willful and wanton as opposed to just general negligence. Importantly, the Court stopped short of providing blanket immunity to such health clubs when a waiver is signed. For instance, it is not clear whether the case allows for a lawsuit when a patron slips and falls on water in the lobby area of the health club while not engaging in any physical activity. Further, it is not clear whether or not other conditions of the property could give rise to a cause of action.

In light of the above, in the event you or a family member are injured as a result of exercise in a health club setting, it is important to seek the advise of a personal injury attorney who can provide you with proper guidance and fully protect your rights.

A recent trend has come to our attention in the realm of motor vehicle accident settlements. More than one of our clients, upon initial consultation for personal injuries related to a motor vehicle accident, has advised us that they have received and cashed checks from the other person's motor vehicle insurance carrier prior to meeting with us. These checks are generally in the $250.00 to $500.00 range. Importantly, although our clients are being told that the small payments are being provided to them for medical co-pays and deductibles, our close review of the documentation provided with the checks has revealed that the checks are being provided in exchange for a full and final settlement of any and all personal injuries.

The clients that have approached us with these checks were shocked to find out that they may have jeopardized their right to collect full and complete compensatory damages for their pain and suffering, disability and impairment, and loss of enjoyment of life by merely receiving, acknowledging and cashing these small checks when they were specifically told by the insurance companies that the checks were being provided to them for their medical co-pays and their deductibles. In this regard, New Jersey law provides that a tortfeasor will not be responsible for any medical co-pays and/or deductibles in a motor vehicle accident. As such, it is clear to us that these insurance companies were clearly misrepresenting the facts to our clients for purposes of fraudulently entering into a settlement agreement.

Fortunately, after our involvement, a majority of the insurance companies have "backed away" from their position that the case has been settled and will allow our clients' remaining personal injury claims to go forward. More astoundingly, at least one insurance company has refused to back off their position and we are presently looking into filing suit against them and all of the insurance companies that have engaged in this practice as a result of their engaging in fraud, deceit and violation of various New Jersey statutes concerning Fair Settlement Practices.

In light of all of the above, it is especially important that, if you are involved in a motor vehicle accident, you do not sign any paperwork provided to you by the other driver's insurance company, or cash any checks provided to you by them, before speaking to a lawyer qualified in the area of personal injury litigation. While generally checks payable to body shops for property damage and checks payable directly to you for vehicles which have been totaled as a result of the accident are safe to sign and/or deposit, we suggest speaking to an attorney first.

A recent appellate case, Luchejko v. City of Hoboken, et.al., holds that a condominium association is not liable for dangerous conditions on the public sidewalk abutting the condominium association's property. This recent decision highlights the current status of New Jersey sidewalk liability law. As indicated in prior blogs, a landlord is generally responsible or legally liable for personal injuries as a result of dangerous conditions existing on its property. However, there are significant exceptions when this general rule is applied to public sidewalks within the State of New Jersey.

For purposes of personal injury liability, public sidewalks in the state of New Jersey are basically divided into two categories. The first are those that abut residential premises. The second category includes those public sidewalks that abut commercial premises. As a general rule, a homeowner or an owner of a residential premises will not be responsible for injuries which are the result of dangerous conditions on the public sidewalk abutting their premises. In this regard, it is the local public entity that will be responsible. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, such as where the owner of the residence actually creates the condition that gave rise to the injury. Further, the public entity's responsibility for injuries occurring on the public sidewalks abutting residences will be tempered (?) limited to the provisions of New Jersey's Tort Claims Act.

On the other hand, owners of commercial premises will be responsible for injuries that are sustained as a result of dangerous conditions contained within public sidewalks abutting those commercial premises. Thus, generally, owners of commercial premises have a duty to properly maintain the sidewalks that abut their property. This duty extends to the removal of ice and snow. The theory behind imposing this duty upon commercial establishments relates to the potential revenue generates by the business and shifting the risk away from the public entities.

In any event, the main difficulty in such cases is determining whether or not the property is "commercial" or "residential." For instance, should a multi-tenant apartment building be considered commercial or residential for the purposes of this analysis? Should a church be considered commercial or residential? Basically, the courts have stated that the test really is whether or not the property has the capacity to generate income. Thus, even residential properties that are owned for investment or business purposes will be classified as commercial under this analysis. Similarly, a parochial school and a fraternity house have also been held to be commercial establishments for purposes of this test.

In the recent case of Luchejko v. City of Hoboken et.al. the issue was whether or not a condominium association should be considered commercial or residential entity because the condominium complex at issue in this case was basically and predominantly an owner-occupied, and the condominium association was a "non-profit" corporation, the court considered that this complex qualified as a residential premises. Accordingly, liability was not extended. However, it appears that the Appellate Division did not provide a blanket rule that all condominium associations should be treated in the same way. Each case must be properly reviewed, examined and analyzed, given its unique facts and circumstances of the incident.

The fact sensitive nature of this type of case makes it crucial that a very skilled attorney analyze all the details and circumstances surrounding the incident that led to an injury at the first possible moment, in order to be legally successful and to sufficiently protect your rights.

It has been reported that the city of Charleston, West Virginia has recently agreed to a $25,000.00 settlement with a family who filed a lawsuit against the city after they were involved in a motor vehicle accident with a drug dealer who was fleeing from police. The chase allegedly occurred during an attempt to set up a drug bust by an under cover police officer. For lawyers, this settlement raises issues as to whether or not such a litigation could be supported by the law in the state of New Jersey.

Liability of police officers and other public entities are governed by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA). New Jersey's Tort Claims Act basically provides various immunities to various public entities and their employees for actions undertaken during the course of their employment. Further, the TCA also limits various aspects of many causes of action.

With regard to the liability of police officers or police departments involved in a car chase, there is a specific immunity provided in the TCA at NJSA 59:5-2(b)2. Specifically, the statute indicates that neither a public entity nor employee will be responsible for any injury resulting or caused by an escaping or escaped person or by a law enforcement officer in pursuit of such a person. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, in the case of Tice v. Cramer, 133 N.J.347 (1993) held that the specific immunity applied to situations where law enforcement officers were in pursuit of an "escaping or escaped person." The court held that the definition of "escaped" or "escaping" persons included individuals who were not previously in the custody of a law enforcement agency. Accordingly, any time a police officer is in pursuit of a suspect, the immunity would apply. This would include individuals who fail to yield to a police office on even routine traffic violations. Thus, New Jersey law provides immunity to law enforcement agencies and police officers when ever a person is injured as a result of a police chase, whether the injury is sustained from the officer's vehicle or the fleeing suspect's vehicle.

The more difficult case for a lawyer involves injuries sustained when one is injured in a motor vehicle accident with a police officer's vehicle when the officer is merely responding to the scene of a call. In this instance, the police officer is not specifically pursuing an "escaping or escaped" person but is merely responding to a dispatched location. In these types of cases, the officers may be entitle to the catch all "good faith" as set forth in NJSA 59:3-3, which immunizes a public employee so long as that public employee acts in good faith in the execution or enforcement of any law.

Obviously, car accidents arising out of police chases or with law enforcement officers present complex legal issues and any such cases should be reviewed by an attorney as soon as possible.

Cases of bullying in schools by other students have been all over the news in recent weeks. Unfortunately, these news events have ranged from severe injuries suffered by students at the hands of other students to suicides committed as a result of the emotional stress suffered from constant unchecked bullying. This blog will briefly deal with the potential legal remedies a bullied student may have through personal injury law.

First, it is clear that the victim of physical or emotional injuries, which are the direct result of an assault by another student, clearly has a cause of action against the person who committed the assault. Other individuals may be included as responsible parties if it can be proven that they somehow contributed to the actions of the party committing the assault. For instance, if they encouraged or assisted in the assault in any way such as luring the victim to a particular location or advising the assaulter of the location of the victim, while knowing that the assault was imminent. The success of these types of claims, however, is often dependent upon the availability of applicable insurance coverage or assets owned by the assaulter.
Where the injuries are emotional in nature, arising solely out of verbal abuse or by entries on a social networking website, the answer is not so clear. If the words stated or posted online are untrue and cause damage to the student's reputation, a cause of action in defamation may exist. However, very restrictive rules apply in New Jersey in this regard, and these cases are very fact sensitive concerning both the causes of action and damages. If it can be proven that the words posted online or stated in public, even if true, were meant to cause distress or mental anguish, a cause of action for the negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress may exist. Once again, issues of insurance coverage and availability of assets will determine the feasibility of these types of claims.

The final question is whether a school may be sued for such an injury. It is clear that a school will not be held responsible for physical or emotional injuries caused by bullying where it had no prior notice of the bullying and had no reason to know of same. Even where it can be shown that the school had notice of the bullying, New Jersey Courts have been hesitant to incur liability upon a school board unless it can be shown that the bullying was pervasive. Clearly, there is a common law duty for the schools to protect the children that come under their care on a day-to-day basis. In this regard, there is no doubt that common law principles of general negligence will provide a cause of action against a school board where it can be shown that the bullying was severe and pervasive, the school had actual knowledge of the pervasive and severe nature of same, and a student suffered harm as a result of such bullying. Importantly, however, any such claims of negligence against a school board will be subject to the limitations of New Jersey's Tort Claims Act.

In 2007 the Supreme Court of New Jersey went one step further in the case of L.W. v. Toms River Regional Board of Education, 189 N.J. 381 (2007) and held that students could potentially have cause of action against a school board for the school board's failure to stop severe and pervasive bullying under New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination statute. Basically, the court held that if the bullying was the result of a protected class status under the Law Against Discrimination (such as race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, etc.) and the school failed to prevent further bullying after it has knowledge of same, it could be liable to the student under the Law Against Discrimination. Importantly, what this basically means to a student with a potential cause of action is that their case would not be subject to the limitations of the Tort Claims Act; and they would potentially be entitled to counsel fees and punitive damages against the school board.
Inevitably, these cases are always fact sensitive and only and experienced attorney would be able to properly determine whether such causes of action exist.