NJ Laws Email Newsletter E260
Kenneth Vercammen, Attorney at Law November 12, 2007
In This Issue
_______________
In this issue:
1. Municipality Could be Liable for Slip & Fall on Snow.
2. Suppression of Stop and Dismissal of DWI Dismissed Where No Erratic Driving.
3. Insurance Company Required to Participate in Injured Person's Underinsured Motorist Arbitration.
4. Business Not Liable When Neighbor's Customer Hit by Car.
5. Uninsured Motorist Benefits are Available to a Plaintiff in a Random, Drive-By Shooting.
6. Landlord not Liable for Tenant's Dog's Bite.
7. City Not Liable for Injury When Injury is Not Permanent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Municipality Could Be Liable for Slip & Fall On Snow
TORT CLAIMS ACT. ANTHONY v. TRI-COUNTY SECURITY. Appellate Division, A-361-06T3, October 9, 2007, not approved for publication
Summary judgment for the defendant Camden County and the defendant County Board of Chosen Freeholders reversed and remanded in a personal injury action; the plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on the steps inside City Hall in the City of Camden on "a very snowy day"; the Appellate Division agreed with the plaintiff's argument that summary judgment should not have been granted because there was sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition on the steps where the plaintiff slipped and fell; a fact-finder reasonably could infer (1) that the steps had been wet for a sufficient period of time to place the defendants on notice of the condition and of its dangerous nature and (2) that the defendants' failure to take action to protect against that condition was palpably unreasonable; there was an adequate factual foundation for a jury to find that any puddles of water on the steps could have been dealt with readily through the use of warning signs, runners, or a mop.
Source: NJ Lawyer Daily Briefing dailybriefing@njsba-njldailybriefing.com, October 10, 2007
2. Suppression of Stop and Dismissal of DWI Dismissed Where No Erratic Driving.
DRUNK DRIVING. STATE v. AMELIO. Appellate Division, A-1679-06T5, September 21, 2007, not approved for publication. Law Division order following a trial de novo that granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence that resulted from a stop of his vehicle and that led to his arrest for driving while intoxicated and for refusal to submit to a Breathalyzer test affirmed; the defendant's 17 year old daughter reported to the police that she was having a verbal dispute with the defendant, that the defendant was "drunk," and that he had left the scene in a vehicle; a police officer on patrol observed a vehicle that matched the description given by the daughter; that vehicle parked on the side of the road and then drove away about five seconds later; the officer then pulled the vehicle over; the Law Division properly concluded that the information given to the police dispatcher and then to the officer did not provide reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving while intoxicated; there was no evidence that the defendant was operating his vehicle in an erratic manner, and the only evidence offered by the State was the daughter's statement that the defendant was "drunk."
Source: NJ Lawyer October 1, 2007
3. Insurance Company Required to Participate in Injured Person's Underinsured Motorist Arbitration.
KARAMOLEGOS v. YUNGER Appellate Division, A-991-06T1, October 16, 2007, not approved for publication. Law Division order that required that the defendant/third-party plaintiff insurer of the plaintiff appear at underinsured motorist arbitration within 90 days affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by the Law Division; the plaintiff was injured in an accident with the defendant driver in December 2002; in February 2004, the driver and the defendant owner of the vehicle he was operating offered to settle, and the plaintiff's attorney requested permission from the insurer to accept the offer and to pursue a UIM claim under Longworth v. Van Houten; in December 2004, the plaintiff filed her automobile negligence action; in January 2005, the insurer stated its parameters for UIM arbitration, which the plaintiff's attorney accepted; the insurer did not respond thereafter, and the plaintiff accepted the settlement in August 2005; the insurer then rejected the plaintiff's claim for UIM benefits, asserting that its subrogation rights had been jeopardized by the plaintiff's failure to give notice before settling; however, the Law Division properly determined that the plaintiff had substantially complied with both Longworth and Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co. v. Vassas.
4. Business Not Liable When Neighbor's Customer Hit by Car.
Brierley v. Rode. 09-27-07 A-0637-06T3. A business that permits another business, which is on the other side of a public road, to use its lot for customer parking, has no duty to the other business's customers to make passage over the road reasonably safe.
5. Uninsured Motorist Benefits are Available to a Plaintiff in a Random, Drive-By Shooting.
Livsey v. Mercury Insurance Group. A-1238-06T5 10-24-07. Uninsured motorist benefits are available to a plaintiff in a random, drive-by shooting.
6. Landlord Not Liable for Tenant's Dog's Bite.
TORTS. SPELLS v. UPLAND. Appellate Division, A-1373-06T1, November 5, 2007, not approved for publication. Summary judgment for the defendant landlords affirmed in a personal injury action; the plaintiff child was bitten and dragged by a dog owned by the defendant tenant; the dog had gotten loose and had run onto the sidewalk in front of the next-door neighbor's house; the trial court had concluded that a landlord cannot be held liable for a bite by a tenant's dog that occurs outside the common areas of the apartment house over which the landlord has control; there were no facts on which the fact-finder could conclude that the landlords knew or should have known that the tenant's dog was vicious or that it was likely to get loose; thus, even if the landlords owed a duty of care to persons on adjoining properties, there was no basis to conclude that they were negligent with regard to the dog biting the plaintiff.
Source: NJ Lawyer Daily Briefing November 6, 2007
7. City Not Liable for Injury When Injury is Not Permanent.
TORT CLAIMS ACT. BRITTON v. CITY OF ELIZABETH. Appellate Division, A-2203-06T2, November 5, 2007, not approved for publication. Summary judgment for the defendant City and the defendant City Department of Health and Human Services based on the N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d) verbal threshold under the Tort Claims Act affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by the trial court; the plaintiff fractured her left fibula when she fell from a swing; the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's arguments (1) that, because she remained under the care of her doctor through the date of the appeal, summary judgment had been improperly granted and (2) that, because there were material questions of fact as to whether she had suffered a permanent injury that was substantial, summary judgment should be vacated.
Source: NJ Lawyer Daily Briefing November 6, 2007
Thank you for reading our newsletter! God Bless America USA #1
Our updated law blogs:
NJLaws' Newsletter Blog-http://njlaws1.blogspot.com/
NJ Criminal Law Blog - http://njcriminallaw.blogspot.com/
NJ Traffic Law & Municipal Court Blog - http://traffic-law.blogspot.com/
NJ Personal Injury & Civil Law Blog- http://njlawspersonalinjury.blogspot.com/
NJ Elder Law Blog -http://elder-law.blogspot.com/
NJ Drug Law Blog - http://drugarrest.blogspot.com/
We appreciate continued referrals. We want to take the time to extend to our friends and clients our sincere gratitude because it is good friends and clients that make our business grow. Client recommendation is a very important source of new clients to us. We are grateful for the recommendation of new clients. We will do our best to give all clients excellent care. We shall do our best to justify all recommendations.
"Celebrating more than 21 years of providing excellent service to clients 1985-2007" Former Prosecutor
This newsletter is produced to be sent electronically. If you know someone who would also like to receive this email newsletter, please have them email us at newsletter@njlaws.com.
Free T- shirts and soda can holders available for all current and past clients. Please come into office.
Editor's Note and Disclaimer:
All materials Copyright 2007. You may pass along the information on the NJ Laws Newsletter and website, provided the name and address of the Law Office is included.
KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
(Phone) 732-572-0500
(Fax) 732-572-0030
website: www.njlaws.com
Admitted to practice law in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, US Supreme Court and Federal District Court
