T.B. v. Novia
| Decision Date | 03 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-1405-21, A-1406-21 |
| Citation | 472 N.J.Super. 80,275 A.3d 47 |
| Parties | T.B., an Infant by his Guardian Ad Litem, E.B., and E.B. and R.B., individually and as parents of T.B., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Alexis NOVIA, Patrick Novia, and Woodbridge Township School District, a public entity of the State of New Jersey, Defendants, and Woodbridge Township Board of Education, a public entity of the State of New Jersey, and Township of Woodbridge, a public entity of the State of New Jersey, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Roshan D. Shah argued the cause for appellant Woodbridge Township Board of Education (Anderson & Shah, LLC, attorneys; Roshan D. Shah, of counsel and on the brief; Erin Donegan, on the brief).
Brian A. Bontempo argued the cause for appellant Township of Woodbridge (James P. Nolan and Associates, LLC, attorneys; Brian A. Bontempo, on the brief).
Robert G. Goodman, Woodbridge, argued the cause for respondents (Palmisano & Goodman, PA, attorneys; Robert G. Goodman, on the briefs).
Before Judges Sabatino, Mayer, and Bishop-Thompson.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MAYER, J.A.D.
By leave granted, defendants Woodbridge Township Board of Education (Board) and Township of Woodbridge (Township) appeal from December 9, 2021 orders denying their motions for summary judgment. We affirm the order denying summary judgment to the Board and reverse the order denying summary judgment to the Township.
We summarize the facts from the motion record.
On February 22, 2019, plaintiff T.B. (Tom)1 and his twin brother, K.B. (Kurt), were freshmen attending Colonia High School. That afternoon, the brothers walked home from school along New Dover Road. While driving on New Dover Road, defendant Alexis Novia became distracted by a deer, lost control of her car, and struck Tom. Tom suffered significant injuries, including internal bleeding, multiple broken bones
, lacerations to his organs and face, and a skull fracture. As a result of his injuries, Tom had difficulty walking, eating, and speaking. He continues to have trouble performing activities of daily living.
Colonia High School is part of the Woodbridge Public School District. The Board operates and manages the Woodbridge Public School District.
In accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1,2 the Board adopted a policy providing mandatory free busing to high school students living more than two and a half miles from their school. On the date of the accident, Tom and Kurt lived fewer than two and a half miles from Colonia High School.
In 1978, the Board adopted Policy 3541.1, entitled "Transportation Routes and Services," governing, as N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1.5 prescribes, transportation services for students who "must walk to and from school along hazardous routes."3 The Board reviewed and updated this policy in 2011, and then readopted the policy in 2014 and 2016. The policy directed "the superintendent [of the school district] to supervise development of bus routes to provide safe, economical and reasonably expeditious transportation" for certain students, including "[e]ducationally disabled students in accordance with their [Individualized Education Program (IEP)]" and "[s]tudents whose route to the school is deemed hazardous by the [B]oard." The policy further provided "the [B]oard may transport ... public ... students who live within statutory limits (courtesy busing)" and "may charge for this service."4
As part of Policy 3451.1, the Board adopted criteria to determine hazardous routes. The criteria included: population density; traffic volume; average vehicle velocity; existence or absence of sufficient sidewalk space; winding roads and highways; roads or highways with blind curves; steeply inclined roads or highways; drop-offs in close proximity to a sidewalk; crossing bridges or overpasses to reach the school; traversing train tracks or trestles to reach the school; and crossing busy roads and highways to reach the school. The Board also considered the age of the students walking a particular route as part of its hazardous route evaluation. See N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1.5(a) ().
Policy 3541.1 expressly provided "the superintendent shall work in conjunction with municipal officials to determine the criteria necessary for the classification of a hazardous route and shall maintain a list of all hazardous routes in the district." See N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1.5(b) (). The Board's witnesses indirectly testified the Board and Township worked together to craft criteria for designating hazardous routes. The Board then adopted a Hazardous Route Criteria Rating Chart (Rating Chart), applying a point system for delineating hazardous routes.
For a route to be designated as hazardous in the Woodbridge Public School District, it must receive at least one hundred points per the Rating Chart. The Rating Chart stated the criteria "applied to conditions only during normal student walking hours to and from school using the shortest reasonable route from the home of the student to the school." The Rating Chart identified four main categories: roadway; walkway; grade level; and extraordinary temporary conditions. The "extraordinary temporary conditions" category applied to routes "[p]osing immediate and substantial danger not otherwise described [in the other categories] resulting in immediate busing." Under this category, regardless of the number of points assigned to a route, the relative risk of a particular route would be "determined by Township Safety Officer and/or Officer in Charge of Transportation." A notation at the bottom of the Rating Chart stated,
In August 2014, the Board adopted Regulation 3541.33b listing the hazardous routes for students walking to and from school. According to this regulation, "[i]t would be considered hazardous for an elementary (K-5) school student to: ... walk on New Dover Road from the Parkway bridge to the Route #27 bridge ...." However, the same route was not considered hazardous for high school students walking to and from school.
At his deposition, the Board's former Supervisor of Transportation, Jonathan Triebwasser, testified that he and the former Woodbridge Police Traffic Safety Coordinator evaluated New Dover Road several times between the mid-1990s and 2005. According to Triebwasser, New Dover Road was deemed safe for students above the fifth-grade level. When asked during his deposition to apply the point criteria in the Rating Chart to New Dover Road, Triebwasser explained the roadway would receive forty points, fewer than the required one hundred points to be designated as a hazardous route for high-school-age students. Triebwasser further testified a completed Rating Chart for a particular roadway and records of any route evaluation are "thrown away" by the Board after three years.
Mark Cinelli, the Board's current Supervisor of Transportation, testified during his deposition that the list of hazardous routes for students existed when he started the job in August 2012. He explained the Board does not review "every hazardous route every year or that often" because the criteria for deeming a route hazardous did not change "year to year." Based on documents produced in discovery, the hazardous route list remained unchanged between 2005 and 2014. Cinelli confirmed the hazardous route list did not change from 2012 to 2021. Cinelli also explained there was no policy or procedure specifying when hazardous routes would be reevaluated.
Triebwasser confirmed Cinelli's testimony regarding when the Board would reevaluate a hazardous route designation. According to Triebwasser, if hazardous routes were already "identified and evaluated, there would be no reason to reevaluate ...." Triebwasser claimed routes would only be reevaluated by Board employees based on a change in circumstances.
In addition to adopting Policy 3541.1 and Regulation 3541.33b, the Board approved written procedures for parents seeking to contest hazardous or non-hazardous route designations. According to the written procedures, a parent who wishes to contest the Board's designation of a route must first contact the Board's Supervisor of Transportation.5 After a parent states the problem with a route designation, the Supervisor of Transportation "reviews the problem with the Police Traffic Safety Officer." If the Supervisor of Transportation and Traffic Safety Officer agree, they "render[ ] [a] decision to [the] contestant." If the two officials disagree, the matter is submitted "to the Business Administrator, who renders a decision after a conference with the Township Traffic Safety Director." Thereafter, "[i]f a contestant disagrees, he/she can then submit [a] written request for a decision to the Superintendent of Schools," who will then "review[ ] and make[ ] [a] decision based on [the] criteria." If a parent remains dissatisfied, there are additional procedures to contest a route designation.
Around 2010, the Township assigned Sergeant Eric Nelson to work in conjunction with the Board to assess the safety of walking paths to and from school. From 2010 until his retirement in 2016, Sergeant Nelson served as the traffic safety officer for the Woodbridge Police Department. Although he could not recall the specific year, Sergeant Nelson testified he served as a liaison between the Township and the Board for a three-month period. According to Sergeant Nelson, as a result of school budget cuts, he was asked to...
To continue reading
Request your trial