Bryce Patrick v. City of Elizabeth, 159 A.3d 906

Background

Eight-year-old Bryce Patrick was struck while crossing a street near Brophy Field (a municipal park) about a block from a public elementary school; a passing vehicle struck him after another motorist had stopped to let children cross. A "Watch for Children" sign existed on the street.
Plaintiff sued the City of Elizabeth and the Elizabeth Board of Education (BOE), alleging the roadway was a dangerous condition and signage was inadequate (including lack of school-zone signage). Claims against the driver were resolved earlier.
Discovery was extended multiple times; the trial court denied a fourth extension and barred plaintiff’s liability expert report as untimely, finding no exceptional circumstances under Rule 4:24-1.
Defendants moved for summary judgment based on immunities in the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA), including discretionary-function immunity and the specific exemption for ordinary traffic signs.
The trial judge granted summary judgment, finding plaintiff failed to prove a dangerous condition or notice, that signage decisions are discretionary and immunized (N.J.S.A. 59:4-5 and 59:2-3), and that the BOE did not own/control the roadway.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing (1) the court erred in finding no dangerous condition and (2) the liability expert should not have been barred; the Appellate Division affirmed on both grounds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether roadway/signage constituted a "dangerous condition" under N.J.S.A. 59:4-2	Lint: lack of school-zone/speed signage, faded crosswalks, and nearby traffic increase created a dangerous condition and put defendants on notice	City: no proof of dangerous condition or notice; BOE: did not own/control road; signage decisions discretionary/immunized	Court: No actionable dangerous condition proven; no notice; BOE not liable for nonowned property
Whether failure to provide school-zone signage is excepted from TCA immunity (N.J.S.A. 59:4-5)	Lint: school zones require higher standard; school-zone signs are not merely "ordinary" signs, so immunity should not apply	Defs: 59:4-5 bars liability for ordinary traffic signs; placement of signs is discretionary under statute and municipal authority	Court: Signs here are "ordinary" for 59:4-5; installation/placement is discretionary and immunized; no special school-zone exception in TCA
Whether BOE had duty to ensure public road safety adjacent to school/park	Lint: BOE knew park would be used and had proximate responsibility to keep area safe	BOE: did not own, control, or maintain roadway; cannot be liable under property-based TCA provisions	Court: BOE did not own/control the road; TCA requires ownership/control for property-liability; BOE not liable
Whether trial court abused discretion in denying further discovery and barring expert report	Lint: sought 60-day extension and depositions; counsel's injury created exceptional circumstances	Defs: plaintiff already had multiple extensions; no diligence shown; expert report deadline missed before counsel's injury	Court: Denial was not an abuse of discretion; plaintiff failed to show exceptional circumstances; barring expert proper and unlikely to change immunity analysis

Key Cases Cited

Rowe v. Mazel Thirty, LLC, 209 N.J. 35 (review standard for summary judgment)
Polzo v. County of Essex, 209 N.J. 51 (public-entity liability limited under TCA)
Kahrar v. Borough of Wallington, 171 N.J. 3 (public-entity immunity absent statute imposing liability)
Weiss v. New Jersey Transit, 128 N.J. 376 (precedence of specific immunity provisions)
Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 142 N.J. 520 (standard for summary judgment conflicts)
Holloway v. State, 125 N.J. 386 ("palpably unreasonable" standard for imposing liability)
Macaluso v. Knowles, 341 N.J. Super. 112 (rejecting a special-relationship exception to TCA immunities)
Aebi v. Monmouth County Highway Dep't, 148 N.J. Super. 430 (N.J.S.A. 59:4-5 consistent with discretionary-function immunity)