SALLY PINNELLA VS. MEDFORD TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLÂ DISTRICT VS. YMCA CAMP OCKANICKON, INC.(L-338-13, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0220-15T2

Background

Sally Pinnella (plaintiff) slipped and fell on a cafeteria floor at Taunton Forge Elementary on May 1, 2012 while serving as a YMCA camp counselor; she suffered fractures to both wrists.
The Medford Township Public School District (District) provided the cafeteria to the YMCA under a rental agreement obligating the Board to provide janitorial services and maintain the space.
The custodian testified she mopped after lunch (finishing ~1:45–1:50 p.m.) and placed two visible "Caution: Wet Floor" cones at the cafeteria entrances while mopping; plaintiff admitted seeing cones but also claimed cones were always present and floors were often wet when after-school programs began.
Plaintiff said she was warned the floor was wet but entered anyway; emergency responders and a police officer observed some areas of the floor still wet after the incident.
The District submitted an engineer’s report concluding the floor was safe and that plaintiff ignored warnings; plaintiff offered an expert criticizing the District’s cleaning practices under OSHA standards and alleging delayed first-responder contact.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the District; the Appellate Division affirmed, holding the District’s placement of warning cones was not "palpably unreasonable" under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the cafeteria floor was a "dangerous condition" under N.J.S.A. 59:4-2	Pinnella: partially wet floor constituted a dangerous condition that caused her injuries	District: even if partially wet, the District warned entrants and the floor was maintained per policy	Court assumed arguendo a dangerous condition but resolved case on palpably unreasonable element — dangerousness alone insufficient
Whether the District had actual/constructive notice and failed to take adequate measures	Pinnella: routine wet floors and frequent puddles put District on constructive notice; signs were ineffective because always present	District: custodial schedule required post-lunch mopping; cones were placed while mopping and were visible; no evidence of prior incidents or complaints	Court: record lacked evidence of prior incidents/notice sufficient to establish actionable failure; notice element not dispositive here
Whether the District's actions were "palpably unreasonable" under the TCA (key threshold for liability)	Pinnella: placing cones routinely, mopping before after-school programs, not using fans/dry mops, and not mopping at night made the District's practices palpably unreasonable	District: placing visible "wet floor" cones while mopping was a reasonable precaution; alternative measures suggested by plaintiff were hindsight criticisms and not shown necessary or feasible	Court: placing visible warning cones was not manifestly unacceptable or capricious — summary judgment proper because conduct was not palpably unreasonable
Whether the case presented genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment	Pinnella: factual disputes about warning effectiveness, routine wetness, and cleaning methods create triable issues	District: evidence (custodian testimony, no prior incidents, engineer report) supports reasonableness; plaintiff’s expert opinions were insufficient to show palpable unreasonableness	Held: Viewing evidence in plaintiff's favor, no competent evidential material created a jury question on palpably unreasonable conduct; summary judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463 (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (non-moving party must present competent evidential material to defeat summary judgment)
Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469 (once movant presents sufficient evidence, opponent must show genuine issue of fact)
Muhammad v. N.J. Transit, 176 N.J. 185 (elements of public-property dangerous condition claim under TCA)
Polzo v. Cty. of Essex, 209 N.J. 51 (palpable unreasonableness may be decided on summary judgment in appropriate cases)
Vincentore v. Sports & Exposition Auth., 169 N.J. 119 (palpably unreasonable usually a jury question but not always)
Ogborne v. Mercer Cemetery Corp., 197 N.J. 448 (definition of "palpably unreasonable" as manifest and obvious conduct no prudent person would approve)
Kolitch v. Lindedahl, 100 N.J. 485 (clarifying the high threshold for palpable unreasonableness)
Williams v. Phillipsburg, 171 N.J. Super. 278 (legislative intent and distinction between negligence and palpably unreasonable conduct)