Police and public official immunity cases and laws
PI claims against Government officials require substantial injury.
Brooks v. Odom ___ N.J. ___ No. A-132-96 (July 15, 1997).
The New Jersey Supreme Court says that in order to recover for pain and suffering under the Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff has to sustain a permanent loss of a bodily function that is substantial. In this case, no matter how problematic the plaintiff's temporary injuries, the Court rules they are not recoverable. The Court reasons that despite the permanent neck and back pain she suffers, the plaintiff can function both in her work and as a homemaker. The Court also rules that a plaintiff can not recover out of a pocket expenses, like insurance co-payments and deductibles, from a public entity. Verbal Threshold applies to all suits against a Government Official and Police Officer.
Collins v. Union County Jail ___ N.J. ___ No. A-102-96 (July 15, 1997).
In a unanimous decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court says that although the Tort Claims Act establishes a rule of absolute immunity, the statute does not immunize Union County from liability for the post-traumatic stress disorder from which a inmate claims to suffer because he was raped by a corrections officer. Rape is a substantial injury.
U.S. Supreme Court holds qualified immunity does not shield private prisons guards.
Affirming the Sixth Circuit's decision, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that prison guards employed by private firms are not entitled to qualified immunity from prisoner lawsuits field under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The High Court found that Section 1983 suits can sometimes impose liability on private individuals. The case involves a prisoner at a privatized Tennessee facility who filed a constitutional tort action for alleged physical injuries inflicted by guards. In writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Breyer says that "mere performance of a government function does not support immunity for a private person, especially one who performs a job without government supervision or direction. " Richardson V. McKnight ___ U.S. __ No. 96-318 (U.S. June 23, 1997). However, police are entitled to qualified immunity.
Immunity for emergency services
Frields v. St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center et al __ NJ Super. __ (A-2975-96T3, decided November 18, 1997).
Proof of negligence by Mobile Intensive Care Unit personnel and by EMT-intermediate personnel while rendering services does not overcome the qualified immunity afforded to them by N.J.S.A. 26: 2K-14 and N.J.S.A. 26: 2K-29, respectively.
Immunity at the scene of accident
2A: 62A-1.1 Law enforcement officers; emergency care at scene of
accident or emergency; immunity from liability; exception
for gross negligence.
A municipal, county or State law enforcement officer is not liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions undertaken in good faith in rendering care at the scene of an accident or emergency to any victim thereof, or in transporting any such victim to a hospital or other facility where treatment or care is to be rendered; provided, however, that nothing in this section shall exonerate a law enforcement officer for gross negligence. effective January 9, 1997
Bill shielding volunteers from tort liability, non-profits not immune.
Under the legislation signed June 18, 1997 immunity is only available if the volunteer acts in the scope of a non-profit or governmental organization's business and does not act in a criminal, willful or reckless manner, such as using drugs or alcohol. Non-profit organization themselves are not shielded from liability. The legislation prohibits the award of punitive damages against a volunteer, unless the plaintiff can show by clear and convincing evidence that the volunteer engaged in willful or criminal misconduct, or that the volunteer acted with flagrant disregard of the rights or safety of the injured person. The act also limits liability for non-economic loss by apportioning recovery to the percentage of harm for which the volunteer is responsible. Volunteer Protection Act 1997, Pub. L. 105-19. (ex. D.A.R.E. Trip to Great Adventure)
http://www.njlaws.com/recent_car_insuance_and_immunity_cases.html?id=774&a=
PI claims against Government officials require substantial injury.
Brooks v. Odom ___ N.J. ___ No. A-132-96 (July 15, 1997).
The New Jersey Supreme Court says that in order to recover for pain and suffering under the Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff has to sustain a permanent loss of a bodily function that is substantial. In this case, no matter how problematic the plaintiff's temporary injuries, the Court rules they are not recoverable. The Court reasons that despite the permanent neck and back pain she suffers, the plaintiff can function both in her work and as a homemaker. The Court also rules that a plaintiff can not recover out of a pocket expenses, like insurance co-payments and deductibles, from a public entity. Verbal Threshold applies to all suits against a Government Official and Police Officer.
Collins v. Union County Jail ___ N.J. ___ No. A-102-96 (July 15, 1997).
In a unanimous decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court says that although the Tort Claims Act establishes a rule of absolute immunity, the statute does not immunize Union County from liability for the post-traumatic stress disorder from which a inmate claims to suffer because he was raped by a corrections officer. Rape is a substantial injury.
U.S. Supreme Court holds qualified immunity does not shield private prisons guards.
Affirming the Sixth Circuit's decision, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that prison guards employed by private firms are not entitled to qualified immunity from prisoner lawsuits field under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The High Court found that Section 1983 suits can sometimes impose liability on private individuals. The case involves a prisoner at a privatized Tennessee facility who filed a constitutional tort action for alleged physical injuries inflicted by guards. In writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Breyer says that "mere performance of a government function does not support immunity for a private person, especially one who performs a job without government supervision or direction. " Richardson V. McKnight ___ U.S. __ No. 96-318 (U.S. June 23, 1997). However, police are entitled to qualified immunity.
Immunity for emergency services
Frields v. St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center et al __ NJ Super. __ (A-2975-96T3, decided November 18, 1997).
Proof of negligence by Mobile Intensive Care Unit personnel and by EMT-intermediate personnel while rendering services does not overcome the qualified immunity afforded to them by N.J.S.A. 26: 2K-14 and N.J.S.A. 26: 2K-29, respectively.
Immunity at the scene of accident
2A: 62A-1.1 Law enforcement officers; emergency care at scene of
accident or emergency; immunity from liability; exception
for gross negligence.
A municipal, county or State law enforcement officer is not liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions undertaken in good faith in rendering care at the scene of an accident or emergency to any victim thereof, or in transporting any such victim to a hospital or other facility where treatment or care is to be rendered; provided, however, that nothing in this section shall exonerate a law enforcement officer for gross negligence. effective January 9, 1997
Bill shielding volunteers from tort liability, non-profits not immune.
Under the legislation signed June 18, 1997 immunity is only available if the volunteer acts in the scope of a non-profit or governmental organization's business and does not act in a criminal, willful or reckless manner, such as using drugs or alcohol. Non-profit organization themselves are not shielded from liability. The legislation prohibits the award of punitive damages against a volunteer, unless the plaintiff can show by clear and convincing evidence that the volunteer engaged in willful or criminal misconduct, or that the volunteer acted with flagrant disregard of the rights or safety of the injured person. The act also limits liability for non-economic loss by apportioning recovery to the percentage of harm for which the volunteer is responsible. Volunteer Protection Act 1997, Pub. L. 105-19. (ex. D.A.R.E. Trip to Great Adventure)
http://www.njlaws.com/recent_car_insuance_and_immunity_cases.html?id=774&a=
