JOAO ROCHA VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY (L-3348-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0616-15T1

On May 9, 2011 Wan‑Ru Wu drove the wrong way in the express lanes of U.S. Routes 1/9 in Newark after mounting a curb and concrete island separating local and express lanes; he drove south in northbound express lanes and collided head‑on with plaintiff Joao Rocha, who suffered serious injuries.
Rocha sued Wu (settled) and the State of New Jersey and NJDOT under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, alleging the concrete island and a 3.5‑inch curb created a "dangerous condition" and that defendants failed to warn motorists.
The curb was originally built to a 4‑inch face per NJDOT design plans; a 2010 milling/resurfacing raised the roadway half an inch, reducing the exposed curb face to 3.5 inches; the curb was not deteriorated or altered otherwise.
NJDOT design guidance (Design Manual) limits vertical curb heights to 4 inches on roadways and discourages curbs on freeways/high‑speed arterials; AASHTO warns curbs are not desirable on freeways because impacts can overturn or launch vehicles.
Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting (1) design/plan immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:4‑6(a), (2) the curb/island was not a "dangerous condition" under N.J.S.A. 59:4‑2, and (3) their conduct was not "palpably unreasonable." The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 3.5" curb/ concrete island constituted a "dangerous condition" under N.J.S.A. 59:4‑1/59:4‑2	Rocha: reduced curb height (from designed 4") created a hazardous condition that helped cause the collision	State/NJDOT: curb was built per design, not deteriorated; 3.5" complies with Design Manual and is not defective	Held: No dangerous condition — curb met applicable standards and was not defective
Whether the State/NJDOT are immune under plan/design immunity (N.J.S.A. 59:4‑6(a))	Rocha: the actual 3.5" face deviated from the approved 4" design, so immunity should not apply	State/NJDOT: original plan was approved and construction conformed to it	Held: Court did not decide immunity because no dangerous condition; summary judgment affirmed on merits
Whether defendants' conduct was "palpably unreasonable" (necessary for liability even if dangerous condition exists)	Rocha: failure to maintain height/ warn was palpably unreasonable	State/NJDOT: conduct complied with standards; no palpably unreasonable action	Held: Not reached — issue moot because no dangerous condition established
Whether failure to warn of hazard creates liability	Rocha: defendants failed to warn of dangerous curb/island	State/NJDOT: no dangerous condition to warn about; moreover statutory immunities apply to some warning claims	Held: Not reached on merits; in any event state has immunity for ordinary traffic‑control omissions; summary judgment stands

Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463 (de novo review of summary judgment)
Liberty Surplus Ins. v. Nowell Amoroso, P.A., 189 N.J. 436 (summary judgment standard — one‑sided evidence)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (standard for resolving summary judgment disputes)
Manna v. State, 129 N.J. 341 (dangerous condition liability under Tort Claims Act)
Vincitore v. Sports & Expo. Auth., 169 N.J. 119 (elements for dangerous condition claim)
Levin v. County of Salem, 133 N.J. 35 (dangerous condition refers to physical property condition)
Kolitch v. Lindedahl, 100 N.J. 485 (state immunity re: warnings of roadway hazards)
Isko v. Planning Bd. of Livingston, 51 N.J. 162 (sufficiency of trial court findings on motions)