Wilson v. City of Jersey City
209 N.J. 558
| N.J. | 2012Background
- 9-1-1 system in New Jersey relies on public safety answering points (PSAPs) and telecoms; immunity provisions evolved in N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10.
- Sizable tragedy: Dwayne Wilson went on a rampage; Paris, DeQuan, and Dartagnania were injured/killed; Paris survived and later called 9-1-1.
- Anthony Andrews called 9-1-1 from a sister’s cell; call routed to Jersey City PSAP; Petersen created a flawed CAD ticket with address and info errors.
- Second 9-1-1 call from Andrews 22 hours later prompted questions about whether responders should have acted sooner; no lifesaving actions occurred prior to Paris’s later call.
- Plaintiffs sued Jersey City and two 9-1-1 operators for negligent handling of the emergency call; trial court granted summary judgment based on immunity.
- Appellate Division reversed, holding no immunity under Tort Claims Act or 9-1-1 immunity statute; Supreme Court granted certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of 9-1-1 immunity under N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10 | Wilson argued immunity does not extend to negligent dispatch of emergency calls. | City and operators argued broad immunity applies to 9-1-1 handling and to assisting investigations under (d) and (e). | PSAPs and 9-1-1 operators are immune for negligence in handling 9-1-1 calls under (d). |
| Role of subsections (d) vs (e) in 9-1-1 immunity | Dispatched errors fall outside immunities if not part of ongoing investigation. | Both (d) and (e) collectively immunize mishandling of emergency calls and assistance to investigations. | (d) covers mishandling of emergency calls; (e) covers assistance in ongoing investigations; both provide immunity with limit that not involve wanton/disregard. |
| Massachi interpretive approach | Massachi incorrectly narrowed immunity to equipment failures under (d). | Massachi correctly limited scope by ejusdem generis. | Massachi misread the statute; the Court adopts a broad reading of (d) to cover mishandling of calls. |
| Legislative history and objectives | Immunity should be limited to prevent unjust immunity for responders. | Legislative history shows expansion of immunity for carriers and PSAPs; purpose is broad protection. | Legislative history supports broad immunity for 9-1-1 operators and PSAPs under (d) and (e). |
| Remand on wanton/disregard | Issue of wanton and willful disregard unresolved yet essential. | Immunity applies unless there is wanton/disregard. | Remand to Appellate Division for determination of wanton and willful disregard issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson ex rel. Manzano v. City of Jersey City, 415 N.J. Super. 138 (App.Div.2010) (reversed trial court; discussed broad immunity under N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10)
- Massachi v. City of Newark Police Department, 415 N.J. Super. 518 (App.Div.2010) (addressed immunity scope; held (d) limited to equipment-related issues)
- Zabilowicz v. Kelsey, 200 N.J. 507 (2009) (statutory interpretation principles)