WESTLAW#2 - March 17, 2011 Computer Assistant Legal...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
March 17, 2011 Computer Assistant Legal Research Professor Greig Kozan Ligia Halvorsen Fielder vs. Jerkins
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
ROBIN  FIELDER,  PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FREDERICK S.  JENKINS,  TOWNSHIP OF  NEPTUNE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND TOWNSHIP OF NEPTUNE, DEFENDANTS- APPELLANTS, AND NOELLE E. STONACK, KEVIN MCGHEE AND BENNIE T. MCGHEE,  DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. A-2301-93T1F  SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION 274 N.J. Super. 485; 644 A.2d 666; 1994 N.J. Super. LEXIS 288 May 3, 1994, Argued  June 30, 1994, Decided  SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:   [***1]  Approved for Publication July 28, 1994.  PRIOR HISTORY:  On appeal from Superior Court, Law Division, Monmouth County.  CASE SUMMARY   PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellants, police officer, police department and township, challenged the decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey, which denied its motion for summary judgment in respondent injured drivers action for personal injuries. Appellants asserted that they were immune from prosecution under the Torts Claims Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:1-1 . OVERVIEW: Respondent injured driver was involved in a car accident while appellant police officer was involved in a high-speed pursuit of another vehicle. The trial court dismissed appellants', police officer, police department and township, motion for summary judgment. The reviewing court found that under the Torts Claims Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:1-1 , there was no question that appellant police officer, while engaged in his official duties of responding to an emergency, was required to drive his vehicle with due regard to the safety of the public. Appellant police officer would be actionably negligent if he failed to comply with a standard of care commensurate with the circumstances of the emergency to which he was responding. The court stated that § 59:5-2b also did not immunize appellant officer from the consequences of his own negligent driving. The court held that immunity under § 59:5-2b did not apply to situations in which the officer was guilty of wilful misconduct. Thus, as appellant police officer did not follow proper procedure, whether his conduct constituted actionable misconduct was a question of fact, and the court affirmed the order denying the motion for summary judgment. OUTCOME: The court affirmed the trial court's order denying appellants', police officer, police department and township, motion for summary judgment in respondent injured drivers action for
Background image of page 2
personal injuries. The court held that questions of fact existed and that appellants were not immune from tort action if appellant police officer was negligent in his driving. THERESA 
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 15

WESTLAW#2 - March 17, 2011 Computer Assistant Legal...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online