Yancoskie v. Delaware River Port Authority

• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 78 N.J. 321,395 A.2d 192
• Decision Date: 30 November 1978
• Parties: Lorraine YANCOSKIE, administratrix of the estate of Francis J. Yancoskie, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Respondent.

Page 321

78 N.J. 321 395 A.2d 192 Lorraine YANCOSKIE, administratrix of the estate of Francis
J. Yancoskie, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Respondent. Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued Sept. 11, 1978.
Decided Nov. 30, 1978.

Page 322

Leonard R. Wizmur, Mount Laurel, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Elliott Yampell, Haddonfield, for defendant-respondent (Yampell & Consentino, Haddonfield, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

Lorraine Yancoskie instituted this action in the Superior Court against the Delaware River Port Authority ("Authority") for monetary damages resulting from the wrongful death of her husband, Francis J. Yancoskie. She sued as administratrix of his estate, individually, and as the natural guardian of her son, Jason Yancoskie. The defendant Authority, a bi-state agency created by an interstate compact between New Jersey and Pennsylvania, claimed that it was entitled to the substantive and procedural protections of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act as a "public entity," N.J.S.A. 59:8-1 Et seq. It moved for a summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with the ninety-day notice provision of that act. N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. The trial court ruled that a bi-state authority did not fall within the Act's definition of a "public entity," and denied the motion. The Appellate Division granted defendant's motion for leave to appeal. Reasoning that the defendant was a "public entity," the Appellate Division reversed and remanded with directions that judgment be entered in favor of the Authority since plaintiffs had not complied with the notice provisions of the

Page 323

Tort Claims Act. 155 N.J.Super. 1, 382 A.2d 77 (1977). We granted certification. 75 N.J. 609, 384 A.2d 839 (1978).

[395 A.2d 193] The factual pattern emerging from the allegations in the complaint which were admitted on the summary judgment motion is as follows: Francis J. Yancoskie was employed on a construction project to build a bridge between Chester, Pennsylvania, and Bridgeport, New Jersey, for the Authority. On August 16, 1972 he was fatally injured when he received an electric shock and fell from the Pennsylvania side of the bridge. He was survived by his widow Lorraine and two-year-old son Jason. She was appointed administratrix of his estate by the Register of Wills of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, on August 22, 1972.

As administratrix, individually, and as natural guardian of her son, Mrs. Yancoskie...