This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.
The New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) filed a motion to appear as amicus curiae in a case that centers on the whether a Tort Claims Notice is required in cases that arose prior to legislation that expanded the statute of limitations of sexual assault cases.
In W.S. v. Hildreth, Docket No. 086633, the NJSBA is urging the Court to affirm the Appellate Division’s ruling that the plaintiff’s claim “was resuscitated under the newly enacted statute of limitations in N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2a” and the elimination of the need to file a notice of claim. Former NJSBA Trustee Craig J. Hubert and current trustee Thomas J. Manzo, both of Szaferman Lakind, wrote the brief.
“In the face of the crystal-clear intent to pass a statute that opens the door to all victims of sexual assault to bring claims against entities, public and private, for civil redress: was there any legislative intent to deny a class of victims such as W.S. the right to proceed based upon prior tort claim notice requirements?” said the NJSBA in its brief. “Because such a denial would be entirely irreconcilable with the language of the statutes and legislative history, and would further result in unsubstantiated denials of access to civil justice to otherwise similarly-situated victims, the answer must be no.”
The case goes back to W.S. who filed a complaint alleging sexual assault by a teacher while W.S. was an elementary school student. Alleging injuries years after the fact, including an attempted suicide nearly 20 years following the alleged assault, W.S. filed for leave to file a late notice of claim under the Tort Claims Act prior to amendments signed by the governor that did away with this requirement.
That motion was denied without prejudice, and the matter was not finally adjudicated when the amendments to the Tort Claims Act became effective, according to the trial judge. The Appellate Division affirmed based on a different reasoning – the claim was revived as a result of the amendment to the Tort Claims Act and the Charitable Immunity Act and not because the claim was not adjudicated because there was no claim yet to be adjudicated.
“The Legislature clearly intended that [W.S.]’s 2020 complaint was in the universe of lawsuits in which the [Tort Claims Act] would apply,” said the Appellate Division.
The NJSBA argued further that the legislative effect of Chapter 120, the Tort Claims Act, was clear in that it eliminated the notice requirements of the Act. It criticized the defendant’s reading of the “overly strict adherence to the law’s technical, procedural requirements for sexual assault victims” as contradictory to the intent of the legislation to “undeniably provide[ ] victims of sexual abuse broader rights regarding statute of limitations.”
The NJSBA awaits the Court’s ruling on its request.