VIRGINIA CARTER v. ASBURY PARK BOARD OF EDUCATION

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4557-06T34557-06T3

VIRGINIA CARTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ASBURY PARK BOARD OF

EDUCATION,

Defendant-Respondent,

and

CITY OF ASBURY PARK,

Defendant.

__________________________________________________________

 

Submitted June 10, 2008 - Decided

Before Judges Coburn and Waugh.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Monmouth County, L-4419-05.

Greene & Greene, attorneys for appellant,

(Louis A. Reilly, of counsel and on the brief).

Wolff, Helies, Duggan, Spaeth & Lucas, P.A.,

attorneys for respondent (Patricia M. Reilly,

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this personal injury case, the trial judge granted summary judgment to defendant Asbury Park Board of Education. Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Perri in her well-reasoned oral opinion delivered on March 22, 2007. Nevertheless, we add the following comments.

The facts were undisputed for the purposes of the summary judgment motion. Plaintiff fell on a patch of black ice on the sidewalk in front of one of defendant's schools. There was no evidence as to how long the ice patch had been present, although there was evidence of a 7-inch snow storm in the area two or three days before the accident.

The judge's primary reason for ruling in defendant's favor was the common law snow removal immunity established by the Supreme Court in Miehl v. Darpino, 53 N.J. 49 (1968). This immunity was not affected by the enactment of the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 14-4. Rochinsky v. State of N.J. Dept. of Transp., 110 N.J. 399 (1988); Lathers v. Twp. of W. Windsor, 308 N.J. Super. 301 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 154 N.J. 609 (1998); Rossi v. Borough of Haddonfield, 297 N.J. Super. 494 (App. Div.), aff'd, 152 N.J. 43 (1997). Therefore, the judge was obliged to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment and we are obliged to affirm.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-4557-06T3

June 24, 2008

 


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.