Gonzalez v. City of Jersey City
| Decision Date | 04 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 084381,A-19 September Term 2020 |
| Citation | 255 A.3d 1175,247 N.J. 551 |
| Parties | Estate of Hiram A. GONZALEZ, BY Iraideliz GONZALEZ, Administrator Ad Prosequendum, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The CITY OF JERSEY CITY, the Jersey City Police Department, Police Officer Leon Tucker, Jr., and Police Officer Saad Hashmi, Defendants-Appellants, and Eman S. Ahmed and Elham M. Mansour, Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Philip S. Adelman, Assistant Corporation Counsel, argued the cause for appellants (Peter J. Baker, Corporation Counsel, Jersey City Law Department, attorneys; Philip S. Adelman and Stevie D. Chambers, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on the briefs).
Lawrence D. Minasian argued the cause for respondent (Greenberg Minasian, attorneys; Lawrence D. Minasian and William S. Greenberg, West Orange, on the briefs).
Robert F. Renaud argued the cause for amici curiae New Jersey State League of Municipalities and the New Jersey Institute of Local Government Attorneys (Renaud DeAppolonio, attorneys; Robert F. Renaud, on the brief).
Kenneth G. Andres, Jr., argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Association for Justice (Andres & Berger, attorneys; Kenneth G. Andres, Jr., of counsel and on the brief, and Tommie Ann Gibney, Haddonfield, on the brief).
Jonathan Testa submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey Municipal Excess Liability Joint Insurance Fund (Dorsey & Semrau, attorneys; Fred C. Semrau, Boonton, of counsel, and Jonathan Testa, Morristown, on the brief).
In this appeal we are called upon to determine whether officers responding to a one-vehicle accident on a highway bridge may be entitled, under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, to any of the immunities from liability provided by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to :12-3, the Good Samaritan Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-1 to -35, or N.J.S.A. 26:2B-16, a statute that immunizes officers from civil or criminal liability for assisting persons intoxicated in a public place to an appropriate location.
Hiram Gonzalez was in a one-vehicle accident on the Lincoln Highway Bridge in Jersey City. Officers Leon Tucker and Saad Hashmi of the Jersey City Police Department responded to the scene. After Gonzalez's pickup truck was towed, and he rejected offers from the officers to drive him to a nearby location off of the bridge, he called a friend to pick him up. The officers left before Gonzalez's ride arrived, leaving him behind a guardrail on the bridge. After the officers left, Gonzalez walked onto the road, where he was struck by a car and killed. Gonzalez had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .209% at the time he died.
The Estate of Hiram Gonzalez filed a negligence action against defendants -- the City of Jersey City, the Jersey City Police Department, and Officers Tucker and Hashmi. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding they were entitled as a matter of law to immunity from liability under the TCA. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the officers’ actions were ministerial and therefore the defendants are not entitled to the TCA's protections.
We modify and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division. The immunities from liability provided by the Good Samaritan Act, N.J.S.A. 26:2B-16, and most TCA provisions invoked by defendants do not apply here. Defendants’ actions may be entitled to qualified immunity under certain TCA provisions on which defendants rely, however, if the involved officers’ actions were discretionary, rather than ministerial, in nature. In this instance, because of a factual dispute, that determination is for the jury to make upon remand.
The trial and appellate records, including the depositions of the officers, reveal the following facts, which we review in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the non-moving party. See Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540, 666 A.2d 146 (1995).
On August 3, 2014, at approximately 2:26 a.m., Gonzalez was involved in a one-vehicle accident on the Lincoln Highway Bridge in Jersey City. Officers Tucker and Hashmi were dispatched to the scene. When they arrived, Gonzalez's truck was facing the wrong direction against the curb. Gonzalez told them that the vehicle had spun out of control. The officers did not recall seeing any external damage to the car.1 The officers pushed Gonzalez's vehicle to the side of the road and determined that it was inoperable.
The officers called for a tow truck, and after its arrival the driver was asked to take Gonzalez to the tow company's lot, but the driver refused. Officer Tucker then offered to drive Gonzalez to a nearby Shell gas station or the Journal Square PATH station, but Gonzalez refused. Officer Tucker repeated the offer several times and told Gonzalez the bridge was not a safe place to wait -- noting several places on the bridge with dim lighting -- but Gonzalez stated, "I am not riding with no Jersey City cops." At his deposition, Officer Hashmi testified that picking up Gonzalez from the poorly lit shoulder would be "dangerous," and neither he nor Officer Tucker believed the decision to remain on the bridge was wise. However, Gonzalez told the officers at the scene that he would wait for his brother, who was a detective with the Newark Police Department.2
David Martinez testified at his deposition that when Gonzalez called him at around 3 a.m., he was irate, and Martinez believed that Gonzalez was drunk. Gonzalez told Martinez that officers pulled him over and were trying to arrest him. Martinez testified he then spoke with an officer. According to Martinez, the officer on the phone told him that Gonzalez had been drinking and could not drive, and it would "be nice if somebody could come pick him up." When Martinez asked whether Gonzalez was under arrest, the officer said Gonzalez was not under arrest but needed a ride home. Martinez told the officer he would pick up Gonzalez. Neither officer recalled speaking with Martinez.
The officers waited with Gonzalez for Martinez for about fifteen to twenty minutes. Officer Hashmi acknowledged that the standard police practice is to leave a stranded motorist in a safe place or offer them a ride within the city's limits, but he claimed there is no standard practice for when a stranded motorist refuses a ride but is not in a safe place. Officer Hashmi also stated that he and Officer Tucker could have waited with Gonzalez until he had a ride, but they did not because it was a busy Saturday night in the summer and "there were a lot of calls going out."
Both officers stated that a dispatcher told them to resume patrol. The call transcript shows, however, that at 3:24 a.m., Officer Tucker told a dispatcher, The dispatcher responded "ok." Before leaving the scene after that call, the officers told Gonzalez to remain in the pedestrian walkway, which had a guardrail between the roadway and the sidewalk.
After the officers left the scene, at approximately 3:42 a.m., a 9-1-1 call reported a crash involving a pedestrian. Gonzalez had been hit by a car driving in the center lane of the eastbound section of the Lincoln Highway Bridge.3 The accident occurred on a dark area of the bridge, around 1,500 feet from where the officers left Gonzalez behind the guardrail.
Earlier in the evening, Gonzalez had posted pictures of alcoholic drinks on his social media, and an opened bottle of Hennessy was found in his truck after the accident. According to a toxicology report, Gonzalez had a BAC of .209% at the time he died, and when he was with the officers his BAC would have been between .20% and .226% -- more than twice the legal limit. The toxicologist concluded that Gonzalez would have been "markedly intoxicated" when speaking with the police.
The officers claimed, however, that Gonzalez did not appear intoxicated. Officer Hashmi stated that he did not detect the smell of alcohol and Gonzalez was not staggering or slurring his words. Officer Tucker noted that he did not observe behaviors indicating that Gonzalez was intoxicated. Furthermore, Officer Tucker stated that he would have let Gonzalez drive away from the scene had his vehicle been working, and he expressed surprise when he learned the level of Gonzalez's BAC.
Gonzalez's Estate filed a complaint against defendants.4 Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that various provisions of the TCA immunized them from liability. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed the Estate's complaint with prejudice, finding that the officers undertook their duties in good faith and were therefore immune from liability under N.J.S.A. 59:3-3. In doing so, the trial court analogized the facts of this case to those in Morey v. Palmer, 232 N.J. Super. 144, 556 A.2d 811 (App. Div. 1989), but distinguished them from Suarez v. Dosky, 171 N.J. Super. 1, 407 A.2d 1237 (App. Div. 1979).
The Appellate Division reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding as a matter of law that defendants were not entitled to the immunities provided by the TCA. Relying on Suarez, the appellate court found that "because the officers were called to the scene of a motor vehicle accident, the officers’ duty was ministerial in nature -- they had a ministerial duty to render assistance to Gonzalez."
The Appellate Division framed the "controlling issue" in this case as "whether the officers satisfied their ministerial duty to render assistance to Gonzalez after his motor vehicle accident." In considering that issue, the Appellate Division noted "conflicting factual evidence" on issues such as how Gonzalez behaved; the conversations between Gonzalez, the officers, and Martinez; the condition of Gonzalez's car; the officers’ exchange with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T.B. v. Novia
...to immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:2-3(a) and (b) of the TCA. The Board further contends the judge misapplied Estate of Gonzalez v. City of Jersey City, 247 N.J. 551, 255 A.3d 1175 (2021), by concluding a jury must decide whether the Board's acts were discretionary or ministerial. The Board also......
-
Roberts v. Cnty. of Essex
... ... is entitled to qualified immunity under the New Jersey Tort ... Claims Act (“NJTCA”). Although the ECPO ... constituting enforcement of the law.” Bombace v ... City of Newark, 125 N.J. 361, 368 (1991). Decisions of ... the New Jersey ... See, e.g. Gonzalez by Gonzalez v. City of Jersey ... City, 247 N.J. 551, 579 (2021) ... ...