O'Donnell v. N.J. Tpk. Auth.
199 A.3d 786
N.J.2019Background
- Feb 22, 2016: Multi-vehicle collision on the NJ Turnpike killed Timothy O'Donnell and his five-year-old daughter.
- Plaintiff (Pamela O'Donnell) timely retained counsel who, within 90 days, served a notice of claim naming the NJTA but served it on the State Bureau of Risk Management rather than the NJTA.
- Another driver (Eliasar Morales) timely served a near-identical notice of claim on the NJTA within 90 days; Morales’s notice included the police report naming the decedents and alleging the NJTA failed to install safety barriers.
- Plaintiff’s counsel later served an amended notice on the NJTA at ~197 days and plaintiff moved for leave under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 to file a late notice; NJTA moved to dismiss for lack of timely service.
- Trial court granted plaintiff leave to file late notice as extraordinary circumstances; Appellate Division reversed, applying D.D. to hold attorney mistake insufficient.
- Supreme Court reversed Appellate Division, finding extraordinary circumstances given (1) plaintiff’s timely, good-faith effort that identified NJTA, (2) Morales’s timely notice put NJTA on actual notice of the same theory and parties, and (3) no substantial prejudice to NJTA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 extraordinary circumstances permit an untimely notice when plaintiff timely pursued a claim but served the wrong public entity and a separate claimant timely notified the correct entity of the same facts and theory | O'Donnell: attorney's service on the State was a good-faith mistake; combined with Morales's timely notice to NJTA and lack of prejudice, the totality of circumstances is extraordinary | NJTA: this is attorney error; D.D. forecloses treating attorney mistake (or a public entity's failure to forward a misserved notice) as extraordinary; a claimant cannot rely on another claimant's notice | Court: Allowed late filing. Under these unique facts—timely good-faith attempt naming NJTA, Morales’s timely and substantially identical notice to NJTA, and no substantial prejudice—the extraordinary-circumstances exception applies |
Key Cases Cited
- D.D. v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J., 213 N.J. 130 (N.J. 2013) (attorney negligence alone cannot establish extraordinary circumstances under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9)
- Lowe v. Zarghami, 158 N.J. 606 (N.J. 1999) (extraordinary circumstances found where public-employee status was obscured and claimant otherwise diligent)
- Ventola v. N.J. Veteran's Mem'l Home, 164 N.J. 74 (N.J. 2000) (confusion over institutional status justified late filing where claimant otherwise diligent)
- Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111 (N.J. 2000) (attorney confusion based on precedent supported extraordinary circumstances when claimant acted diligently)
- McDade v. Siazon, 208 N.J. 463 (N.J. 2011) (notice of claim must be filed directly with the specific local public entity)
- Rogers v. Cape May Cty. Office of Pub. Def., 208 N.J. 414 (N.J. 2011) (N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 raised the bar to a more demanding ‘extraordinary circumstances’ standard)
- Jones v. Morey's Pier, 230 N.J. 142 (N.J. 2017) (legislative goals of notice requirement include opportunity to correct conditions and plan for liability)