Polzo v. County of Essex, 209 N.J. 51

Kahn-Polzo, a cyclist, died after losing control on the shoulder of Parsonage Hill Road due to a two-foot circle depression about 1.5 inches deep.
Polzo, her husband, sued Essex County for wrongful death and survival, with Millburn Township and the State initially named but later dismissed; Essex remained as the defendant.
County maintained Parsonage Hill Road; five weeks before the accident the County repaired potholes and inspected the entire 2.6-mile road.
Plaintiff alleged the depression was a dangerous condition created or not adequately protected against by the County; experts disagreed on notice and cause of the defect.
Lower courts granted and then reversed summary judgment; the Supreme Court ultimately reinstated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the County.
The Court clarifies that public entities are liable under N.J.S.A. 59:4-2 only if a dangerous condition exists, notice exists, and protection against the condition was palpably unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the County on notice of a dangerous condition?	Polzo argues there was constructive notice via observed depression prior to the accident.	Essex contends no actual or constructive notice; a routine inspection would not have revealed a dangerous condition.	No, the County was not on notice.
Was the County's failure to repair palpably unreasonable?	Polzo says failure to act was palpably unreasonable given the persistent depression.	Essex argues actions were reasonable; no duty to enact an extensive inspection program.	No, failure to act was not palpably unreasonable.
Did the County create the dangerous condition by its actions or omissions?	Polzo asserts neglect in inspecting/repairing created the dangerous condition.	Essex argues the depression was caused by natural subsurface erosion, not maintenance failure.	No, County did not create the dangerous condition.
Should the Court require a formal routine inspection program to impose liability?	Polzo contends an inspection program is necessary to establish notice.	Essex contends no such program standard exists and the County had some proactive practices.	No, absence of a formal program does not automatically create liability.

Polzo v. County of Essex, 196 N.J. 569 (2008) (principal public-entity liability framework under N.J.S.A. 59:4-2)
Vincitore v. N.J. Sports & Exposition Auth., 169 N.J. 119 (2001) (considerations for dangerous conditions and liability)
Garrison v. Twp. of Middletown, 154 N.J. 282 (1998) (noting standards for dangerous condition and notice)
Muhammad v. N.J. Transit, 176 N.J. 185 (2003) (palpably unreasonable standard guidance)
Garrison, concurrence, 154 N.J. 282 (1998) (discussion of palpably unreasonable conduct and maintenance prioritization)