ELVIRA LEVITINA VS. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORP. (L-3781-18, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3089-19

Plaintiff Elvira Levitina, a business invitee, fell in February 2017 after stepping into a pothole in a train-station parking lot and sued NJ Transit under the Tort Claims Act (TCA).
The parking lot was owned by NJ Transit but, under a 1957 agreement, the Metuchen Parking Authority (the Authority) had exclusive responsibility to operate, maintain, and renew the lot and to insure and indemnify NJ Transit.
The pothole was photographed and described as roughly two inches deep and several inches across, allegedly covered with leaves at the time of the fall.
At summary judgment the trial court found the Authority handled maintenance and concluded NJ Transit lacked notice and the condition did not rise to a TCA "dangerous condition." The court granted NJ Transit summary judgment.
The Appellate Division accepted the pothole as a dangerous condition but affirmed summary judgment because Levitina failed to show NJ Transit had actual or constructive notice or that NJ Transit’s conduct was palpably unreasonable given the Agreement delegating maintenance to the Authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the pothole constituted a "dangerous condition" under the TCA	Pothole created a substantial risk of injury to foreseeable users	Pothole not sufficiently hazardous to meet TCA standard (trial ct.)	Court: Pothole qualified as a dangerous condition when viewed in plaintiff's favor
Whether NJ Transit had actual or constructive notice of the pothole	Constructive notice: defect "does not develop overnight" and NJ Transit staff/manager regularly used/inspected the lot	No evidence NJ Transit knew, inspected, or had complaints; maintenance was Authority's responsibility under the Agreement	Court: Plaintiff failed to prove NJ Transit had actual or constructive notice
Whether NJ Transit's failure to remedy was "palpably unreasonable" under the TCA	Regular inspections would have revealed the defect; failure to act was unreasonable	Given no notice and Agreement delegating maintenance, nonaction was not palpably unreasonable	Court: No palpable unreasonableness shown; summary judgment affirmed
Whether expert testimony was required to prove the condition or its duration	Not necessary to prove dangerous condition; duration might require expert proof	Expert not necessary; plaintiff still bears burden to prove notice/duration	Court: Expert not required to show dangerous condition, but plaintiff produced no evidence on how long defect existed, undermining constructive notice claim

Polzo v. Cnty. of Essex, 209 N.J. 51 (recognizes TCA duty differs from common-law negligence and frames liability elements)
Vincitore v. N.J. Sports & Exposition Auth., 169 N.J. 119 (dangerous-condition question is generally for the factfinder and depends on foreseeable use)
Atalese v. Long Beach Twp., 365 N.J. Super. 1 (even small pavement differentials may create substantial risk depending on location/use)
Garrison v. Twp. of Middletown, 154 N.J. 282 (foreseeable public use and due care inform dangerous-condition analysis)
Maslo v. City of Jersey City, 346 N.J. Super. 346 (palpable unreasonableness may be decided as a matter of law in appropriate cases)
Muhammad v. N.J. Transit, 176 N.J. 185 (defines palpably unreasonable as behavior patently unacceptable)
Arroyo v. Durling Realty, LLC, 433 N.J. Super. 238 (existence of a condition alone does not constitute constructive notice)
Bligen v. Jersey City Hous. Auth., 131 N.J. 124 (TCA imposes a higher burden of proof than ordinary negligence)