Komninos v. BANCROFT NEUROHEALTH
417 N.J. Super. 309
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2010Background
- Stephen J. Komninos, a developmentally disabled resident of Bancroft’s group homes, died in October 2007 after choking on a bagel during a Bancroft outing to a 7-Eleven.
- Bancroft employed program associates to supervise residents; Allibone, 18, was assigned to Stephen on October 4, 2007, the day of the fatal incident.
- Stephen’s June 2007 Individual Habilitation Plan (IHP) required arms-length supervision, community outings, and assistance with purchases, reflecting ongoing educational objectives.
- Bancroft is a nonprofit organized for educational and charitable purposes, funded in part by government grants and private donations; its charter emphasizes education, treatment, life skills, and empowerment of individuals with developmental disabilities.
- Plaintiffs asserted negligence and related claims; Bancroft and related defendants moved for charitable immunity under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7, which the trial court denied.
- The Appellate Division reversed in part, holding Bancroft entitled to charitable immunity as a matter of law for ordinary negligence but remanding on claims of gross negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bancroft is entitled to charitable immunity under the Act. | Komininoses argue immunity does not apply. | Bancroft contends it was organized for charitable/educational purposes and patients are beneficiaries. | Bancroft is entitled to immunity for ordinary negligence. |
| Whether Stephen was a beneficiary of Bancroft’s works at the time of injury. | Stephen was not a beneficiary due to policy deviations and timing. | Stephen remained a beneficiary under Bancroft’s educational program. | Stephen was a beneficiary; immunity applies for ordinary negligence. |
| Whether Bancroft’s activities fall within the Act’s educational purpose. | Education ends with the Bancroft School; adult programs are not educational. | Ongoing habilitation and life-skills training constitute education under the Act. | Yes; ongoing vocational and life-skills instruction are educational and protected. |
| Whether issues of gross negligence fall outside the immunity and require remand. | Some conduct may exceed ordinary negligence and thus not be immunized. | Immunity bars only ordinary-negligence claims; gross negligence may proceed. | Remanded for continued proceedings on gross-negligence claims; immunity affirmed for ordinary negligence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment and fact-finding)
- Estate of Hanges v. Met. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369 (2010) (clarifies appellate deference in negligence cases and statutory immunity context)
- Auerbach v. Jersey Wahoos Swim Club, 368 N.J. Super. 403 (App.Div. 2004) (statutory immunity and absence of material facts appropriate for decision)
- Pomeroy v. Little League Baseball, 142 N.J. Super. 471 (App.Div. 1976) (foundational statements on charitable immunity analysis)
- Bieker v. Cmty. House of Moorestown, 169 N.J. 167 (2001) (test for organization’s exclusive nonprofit educational/charitable purpose)
- Orzech v. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ., 411 N.J. Super. 198 (App.Div. 2009) (beneficiary status turns on being within the organization’s charitable works at injury)
- Abdallah v. Occupational Ctr. of Hudson Cty., Inc., 351 N.J. Super. 280 (App.Div. 2002) (limits charitable status where charitable funding is insignificantly small)
- Ryan v. Holy Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, 175 N.J. 333 (2003) (education-related purpose and charitable immunity under the Act)