WILSON v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY

A-61/62 September Term 2010.

39 A.3d 177 (2012)

209 N.J. 558

Paris WILSON, an infant by his Guardian Ad Litem, Sonya MANZANO, and D'Artagnan Manzano, Individually and as Administrator of the Estates of Dequan Wilson and Dartagnania Wilson, and DeQuan Wilson and Dartagnania Wilson, Individually, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY, 911 Operator Laura Jean Petersen (Operator No. 35) and 911 Operator Brenda Murdaugh-Jones (Operator No. 326), Defendants-Appellants, and Police Officer Jose M. Santana (Shield No. 2853), Police Officer Ernest Vidal (Shield No. 2395), Radio Dispatcher Michael Edward Clark, State of New Jersey, New Jersey State Police, and 911 Operator Lu Ann Burd, Defendants, and City of Jersey City, Police Officer Jose M. Santana (Shield No. 2853), Police Officer Ernest Vidal (Shield No. 2395), 911 Operator Laura Jean Petersen (Operator No. 35), Radio Dispatcher Michael Edward Clark, and 911 Operator Brenda Murdaugh-Jones (Operator No. 326), Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Dwayne Wilson and 185 Martin Luther King Drive, LLC; State of New Jersey, New Jersey State Police, Third-Party Defendants.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Decided March 8, 2012.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Stephen M. Orlofsky argued the cause for appellant City of Jersey City ( William C. Matsikoudis , Corporation Counsel and Blank Rome, attorneys; Mr. Orlofsky , Priti R. Vakharia , Assistant Corporation Counsel, Adrienne C. Rogove , and Juli E. Greenberg , Princeton, on the briefs).

Robert E. Levy argued the cause for appellants Laura Jean Petersen and Brenda Murdaugh-Jones ( Scarinci Hollenbeck , attorneys; Mr. Levy and Michael A. Cifelli , of counsel; Mr. Levy , Mr. Cifelli and Candida J. Griffin , Lyndhurst, on the briefs).

Brian C. Harris , Livingston, and Patrick J. Boyle argued the cause for respondents (Braff Harris & Sukoneck and Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, attorneys; Mr. Harris , Mr. Boyle , and Lisa A. Herbert , on the briefs).


Justice ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this appeal, we must determine whether 9-1-1 operators, along with their public-entity employers, are statutorily immune from civil liability for the negligent mishandling of emergency calls. The paramount issue before us is the scope of the 9-1-1 immunity statute, N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10.

The panels in Massachi v. City of Newark Police Department, 415 N.J.Super. 518

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases