Twanda Jones v. Morey’s Pier, Inc. (077502) (Cape May and Statewide)
165 A.3d 769
| N.J. | 2017Background
- Eleven‑year‑old Abiah Jones died after falling from a Ferris wheel on a school trip organized by PleasanTech Academy, a charter school operated by PleasanTech Academy Education Association (the Association). Plaintiffs sued Morey’s Pier entities for wrongful death; the Association was not named as a defendant.
- Neither plaintiffs nor the Morey defendants served a Tort Claims Act (TCA) notice on the Association within the 90‑day period of N.J.S.A. 59:8‑8, nor sought leave to file a late notice under N.J.S.A. 59:8‑9.
- The Morey defendants filed third‑party claims seeking contribution and common‑law indemnification from the Association, alleging its negligence contributed to the death.
- The Association moved for summary judgment invoking N.J.S.A. 59:8‑8; the trial court denied the motion, holding the TCA notice requirement did not bar defendants’ contribution/indemnity claims.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification and reversed: it held the TCA bars the Morey defendants’ third‑party contribution and common‑law indemnification claims because no timely TCA notice was served; the case was remanded with instructions about jury allocation and judgment molding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Morey defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.J.S.A. 59:8‑8’s 90‑day notice bars a defendant’s third‑party contribution and common‑law indemnification claims against a public entity | TCA applies to claims but should not bar defendants’ contribution/indemnity third‑party claims | TCA should not preclude a defendant from asserting contribution/indemnity even if no timely TCA notice was served | Held: N.J.S.A. 59:8‑8 bars defendants’ third‑party contribution and common‑law indemnification claims when no timely TCA notice (or leave to file late notice) was served; summary judgment for Association granted. |
| Whether, despite TCA dismissal, the jury may allocate fault to the public entity under the Comparative Negligence Act and JTCL | Plaintiffs sought to prevent any allocation that would reduce plaintiffs’ recovery | Morey urged that jury should be allowed to allocate fault to Association so defendants can obtain practical benefit of contribution right | Held: If Morey defendants present prima facie evidence that the Association was negligent and its negligence proximately caused the death, the jury may allocate a percentage of fault to the Association. |
| Effect of allocation on damages and defendants’ liability, especially where a defendant is found ≥60% at fault (N.J.S.A. 2A:15‑5.3) | Plaintiffs argued a defendant found ≥60% liable must pay full damages and plaintiff’s recovery should not be reduced | Morey argued judgment should be molded to limit their liability to the jury‑allocated percentage even if plaintiff could otherwise collect 100% from a ≥60% defendant | Held: Trial court must mold any judgment to reduce Morey defendants’ liability by the percentage of fault allocated to the Association (following Burt), so remaining defendants are not deprived of the contribution‑type protection. |
| Duty to preserve TCA claims / discovery implications | Plaintiffs argued for enforcement of TCA notice bar | Morey argued Association should still be required to provide discovery if fault allocation is sought | Held: Parties must timely serve TCA notice or seek leave; defendants may seek allocation at trial but the Association (though dismissed) must respond to reasonable discovery requests to permit fair trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDade v. Siazon, 208 N.J. 463 (2011) (explaining purposes of TCA notice requirement and consequences of noncompliance)
- D.D. v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J., 213 N.J. 130 (2013) (discussing TCA’s limitations on recovery and notice consequences)
- Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111 (2000) (addressing policy behind TCA notice and administrative goals)
- Young v. Latta, 123 N.J. 584 (1991) (permitting allocation/credit to settling defendants and non‑settling defendants’ right to reduction)
- Brodsky v. Grinnell Haulers, Inc., 181 N.J. 102 (2004) (clarifying allocation of fault and jury instructions under comparative fault)
- Town of Kearny v. Brandt, 214 N.J. 76 (2013) (permitting apportionment to defendants dismissed by statute in appropriate circumstances)
- Burt v. West Jersey Health Sys., 339 N.J. Super. 296 (App. Div. 2001) (holding judgment should be molded to reduce liability of remaining defendants by fault allocated to dismissed joint tortfeasor to preserve fairness and contribution rights)