Lee v. Brown
178 A.3d 701
N.J.2018Background
- On Jan. 11, 2010 Paterson electrical inspector Robert Bierals found noncompliant, dangerous wiring in a multi‑unit home owned by Florence Brown, photographed it, and warned her. A Notice of Violation/Order to Terminate was issued and later a Notice and Order of Penalty. Brown did not remediate.
- Bierals returned May 20, 2010, relied on Brown’s statement that wiring remained unrepaired (he did not perform a second physical inspection), told her to hire an electrician, and asked to be notified when repairs began.
- Bierals showed photos to a City official (Ragucci) and expected further action; he did not notify his direct supervisor Del Carmen about an emergency shut‑off due to a prior personal conflict and instead relied on others to act.
- On June 30, 2010 faulty wiring caused a fire that killed four residents and injured others. Plaintiffs sued the City and Bierals among others.
- The trial court initially denied immunity to Bierals (qualified immunity only), a later judge briefly granted absolute immunity but vacated that grant; the Appellate Division affirmed denial of absolute immunity and remanded. The Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court held the critical causative conduct was Bierals’ omission (failure to secure an emergency shut‑off or seek court relief), so absolute immunity under the TCA applies to Bierals and the City; summary judgment for defendants was entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absolute immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:3-5 applies (failure to enforce law) | Bierals actively enforced the law (issued notices, reported matter); thus only qualified immunity applies — question of good faith | The critical causative act was non‑action (failure to obtain shut‑off/seek relief), which is a failure to enforce the law and triggers absolute immunity | Court: Absolute immunity applies because the alleged causative conduct was non‑action (failure to secure shut‑off), so N.J.S.A. 59:3-5 bars liability |
| Whether qualified immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:3-3 governs (enforcing law; good‑faith requirement) | Plaintiffs: Bierals’ affirmative acts (notices, communications) are enforcement; liability depends on whether he acted in good faith | Defendants: Those affirmative acts are antecedent but not the critical causative conduct; good faith need not be reached if absolute immunity applies | Court: Not reached — absolute immunity resolves the case because omission was the critical conduct |
| Whether inspection‑immunity (N.J.S.A. 59:3-7) or negligent inspection covers liability | Plaintiffs: Claim centers on manner/adequacy of enforcement and possible ministerial failures by inspector | Defendants: If inspection caused harm, absolute immunity under inspection provision applies; but primary defense is failure to enforce | Court: No need to decide inspection immunity because failure to enforce (absolute immunity) is dispositive |
| Whether trial court properly reconsidered its prior grant of summary judgment | Plaintiffs: Reconsideration was proper and issues of fact remained | Defendants: Reconsideration was improper and earlier grant should be reinstated | Court: Denial of summary judgment is reviewed de novo; the opinion rests on merits (absolute immunity), so procedural reconsideration ruling history need not alter result |
Key Cases Cited
- Bombace v. City of Newark, 125 N.J. 361 (interpretation that "failure to enforce" = non‑action triggering absolute immunity under the TCA)
- Steinberg v. Sahara Sam's Oasis, LLC, 226 N.J. 344 (summary judgment standard; no genuine issue of material fact)
- Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469 (standard of review for summary judgment appeals)
- Henebema v. S. Jersey Transp. Auth., 219 N.J. 481 (ministerial vs. discretionary acts analysis under TCA)
- Guido v. Duane Morris LLP, 202 N.J. 79 (trial court discretion on motions for reconsideration)