Wuethrich v. Delia

382 A.2d 929, 155 N.J. Super. 324
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedJanuary 11, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 382 A.2d 929 (Wuethrich v. Delia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wuethrich v. Delia, 382 A.2d 929, 155 N.J. Super. 324 (N.J. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

155 N.J. Super. 324 (1978)
382 A.2d 929

BETTY WUETHRICH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM FOR THE HEIRS-AT-LAW OF JOHN WUETHRICH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN DELIA AND TOWNSHIP OF BERKELEY HEIGHTS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued November 22, 1977.
Decided January 11, 1978.

*325 Before Judges MATTHEWS, CRANE and ANTELL.

Mr. John Anthony Lombardi argued the cause on behalf of appellant.

Mr. Thomas W. Greelish argued the cause on behalf of respondent Township of Berkeley Heights (Messrs. Schenck, Price, Smith & King, attorneys; Mr. Francis J. Beyrent, of counsel).

Messrs. Mantel & Thelander filed a Statement in Lieu of Brief on behalf of respondent Delia (Mr. Robert C. Thelander on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

In March 1975 defendant township moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. That motion was denied. The opinion of the judge below which contains the underlying facts is reported at 134 N.J. Super. 400 (Law Div. 1975). Subsequently, in 1976, after discovery was completed, defendant township moved for summary judgment. After having considered the moving and reply papers and having reviewed the entire record, the judge below granted summary judgment in favor of the township.

Pursuant to leave granted, plaintiff appeals contending that the judge erred in granting summary judgment and that the immunity provided by the New Jersey Tort Claims *326 Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 et seq. is not available to defendant township under the circumstances of this case.

We have carefully examined the record below and have concluded that summary judgment was appropriately granted. While it is true that police officers have a duty to investigate information from citizens concerning unlawful or criminal activity, State v. Royal, 115 N.J. Super. 439 (App. Div. 1971), certif. den. 59 N.J. 294 (1971), the failure of the police to make an arrest as a consequence does not subject the municipality to tort liability. N.J.S.A. 59:5-5. Municipalities are expressly immunized from tort liability for the failure to provide police protection or the failure to provide sufficient police protection. N.J.S.A. 59:5-4. A public entity such as a municipality is not liable in tort for its failure to protect against the criminal propensity of third persons. Setrin v. Glassboro State College, 136 N.J. Super. 329 (App. Div. 1975). We find no merit in the argument of plaintiff that the provisions of N.J.S.A. 59:2-2 and 59:2-3 diminish the explicit grant of immunity contained in N.J.S.A. 59:5-4 and 59:5-5.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rachel A. Parsons v. Mullica Township Board of Education
111 A.3d 144 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2015)
S.P. v. Newark Police Department
52 A.3d 178 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2012)
Massachi v. AHL Services, Inc.
935 A.2d 769 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2007)
Kepler v. Taylor Mills Developers, Inc.
815 A.2d 988 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2003)
Sczyrek v. County of Essex
735 A.2d 33 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1999)
Schwarz v. Port Authority Transit Corp.
702 A.2d 1351 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1997)
Gleason v. Peters
1997 SD 102 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1997)
City of Birmingham v. Benson
631 So. 2d 902 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1993)
Weiss v. New Jersey Transit
608 A.2d 254 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1992)
Henschke v. Borough of Clayton
598 A.2d 526 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1991)
Brown v. Grabowski
922 F.2d 1097 (Third Circuit, 1991)
Pico v. State
560 A.2d 1193 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1989)
Lee v. Doe
557 A.2d 1045 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1989)
Rochinsky v. State of NJ, Dept. of Transp.
541 A.2d 1029 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1988)
Pico v. State
538 A.2d 1299 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1988)
Ziegler v. City of Millbrook
514 So. 2d 1275 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1987)
Calogrides v. City of Mobile
475 So. 2d 560 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1985)
Kenney v. Scientific, Inc.
497 A.2d 1310 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
382 A.2d 929, 155 N.J. Super. 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wuethrich-v-delia-njsuperctappdiv-1978.