Seals v. County of Morris
210 N.J. 157
N.J.2012Background
- Plaintiff Seals crashed into Pole #617 owned by JCP&L, located on private property with easement from Morris County.
- Pole placement occurred without Morris County or Washington Township directives regarding exact location.
- JCP&L maintained poles without safety studies or accident databases; county had no permit or obligation to approve pole locations.
- Contey v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. held immunity for poles placed per public directives; however, JCP&L placed its pole independently.
- Court concludes Contey does not automatically immunize JCP&L and that the County’s immunity under the Tort Claims Act requires remand for further record development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is JCP&L immune under Contey for pole placement? | Contey immunizes only if placement follows public directives | Contey immunizes when public body authorizes placement | No immunity for JCP&L; immunity not triggered by lack of county direction |
| Does N.J.S.A. 48:3-17.1 render the County immune? | County silence implies implicit approval of location | Statute does not sancion pole removal by county; cannot shift liability | Statute does not support immunity for County; rejected as basis for JCP&L immunity |
| Can the County be immune under the Tort Claims Act (TCA) for a dangerous condition of property? | County created or maintained dangerous condition; not immune | Plan/design immunity may apply; remand needed to decide | Remand warranted to determine if County immunity applies under N.J.S.A. 59:4-2 and 59:4-6 |
| Does the County’s discretionary-immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:2-3 shield it from liability? | Deferral of pole placement is not discretionary immunity | County discretion may shield it | Remand to develop record; not decided on the merits here |
Key Cases Cited
- Contey v. N.J. Bell Tel. Co., 136 N.J. 582 (1994) (telecom-immunity framework under public-entity standards)
- Stern v. International Ry. Co., 220 N.Y. 284 (1917) (utility liability when danger to highway travel is unreasonable or unnecessary)
- Luczak v. Township of Evesham, 311 N.J. Super. 103 (App.Div. 1998) (prospect of plan/design immunity under remand context)
- Smith v. Fireworks by Girone, Inc., 180 N.J. 199 (2004) (liability for dangerous conditions on public property; scope of public-entity immunity)
- Willis v. Dep’t of Conservation & Econ. Dev., 55 N.J. 534 (1970) (abrogation of common-law immunities; general liability standards)