Janet Henebema v. South Jersey Transportation Authority and N.J. State Police (072545)
219 N.J. 481
N.J.2014Background
- Plaintiff injured in a December 4, 2005 multi-vehicle pile-up on the Atlantic City Expressway during a snowstorm.
- Plaintiff sued drivers/owners (individual defendants) and two public entities—the Authority and the State Police—over alleged failures to follow 9-1-1 procedures.
- Jury found no negligence by individuals; Authority 80% liable and State Police 20% liable under more general negligence theories; plaintiff awarded about $8.75 million.
- Trial court denied JNOV and remittitur; Appellate Division reversed as to public entities, remanding for retrial on whether employees acted ministerially or discretionarily under the Tort Claims Act (TCA).
- This Court held the remand should target only the public entities’ liability under ministerial vs discretionary standards, not re-litigate individual defendants’ negligence or plaintiff’s comparative negligence.
- Result: Appellate Division judgment affirmed on the remand scope; retrial to proceed only for public-entity liability under the identified standard of care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of retrial after remand | Henebema argues limited remand should not reassess individuals or plaintiff’s comparative negligence. | Public entities contend retrial must reassess all parties. | Retrial limited to public-entity liability; not all parties. |
| Intertwining of issues (interdependence) | No interdependence requiring joint retrial of all issues. | Retrial should reassess all issues due to interrelated negligence/causation. | Issues are not sufficiently intertwined to require re-trial of all parties. |
| Standard for liability under the TCA (ministerial vs discretionary) | Question is whether ministerial vs discretionary analysis affects broader liability. | Public entities must be retried under the correct standard to determine liability. | Remand focuses on whether public-entity actions were ministerial (ordinary negligence) or discretionary (palpably unreasonable) for liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Acken v. Campbell, 67 N.J. 585 (1975) (remand allowed to include plaintiff’s comparative negligence when error infected multiple issues)
- Ahn v. Kim, 145 N.J. 423 (1996) (issues in negligence should be retried together unless clearly distinct and separable)
- Conklin v. Hannoch Weisman, 145 N.J. 395 (1996) (to avoid jury confusion, related negligence and causation issues may require retrial of both)
- Ogborne v. Mercer Cemetery Corp., 197 N.J. 448 (2009) (dangerous-condition/causation issues intertwined; warrants broader retrial in some contexts)