Rochinsky v. State, Dept. of Transp

3 Citing cases

  1. Rochinsky v. State of N.J., Dept. of Transp

    110 N.J. 399 (N.J. 1988)   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that common law immunity for snow removal survived TCA; noting that that immunity developed "[i]n the midst of gradual erosion of judicial tolerance for the doctrine of sovereign immunity" but was reflective of "the unique challenge snow removal poses for public entities" and that conditions supporting that immunity remained prevalent

    Id. In this case the trial court followed Manca and granted the DOT's motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division reversed. Rochinsky v. State, Dep't of Transp., 214 N.J. Super. 525 (1986). The court reasoned that the Legislature intended pre-existing common-law immunities to survive only to the extent they were consistent with the Act.

  2. Rochinsky v. State, Department of Transportation

    526 A.2d 191 (N.J. 1987)

    Petition for certification granted. (See 214 N.J. Super. 525)

  3. Pico v. State

    223 N.J. Super. 446 (App. Div. 1988)   Cited 3 times
    Reversing summary judgment for the state where failure to salt or sand icy patch for over three hours destroyed state's immunity for conditions created by weather

    At the best for plaintiff, Avino, the Totowa maintenance foreman, undertook a ministerial duty for the protection of drivers on Route 23, such as plaintiff, to "handle" the traffic safety peril on Route 23 in Wayne and failed for nearly three hours to carry it out. Plaintiff has a right of action against the State for negligence of its employee under N.J.S.A. 59:2-2(a) for her injuries suffered in the icy roadway accident. As a parallel, we held in Rochinsky v. State Dept. of Transp., 214 N.J. Super. 525 (App.Div. 1986), certif. granted 107 N.J. 124 (1987) and Paternoster v. N.J. Transp.