Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wells v. Dillihay

May 12, 2008


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irenas, Senior District Judge


This action arises from injuries Plaintiff Sheilah Wells allegedly received as a result of a collision between two buses.

Plaintiff brought negligence claims against the owners of the buses, New Jersey Transit and/or The New Jersey Transit Corporation and Greyhound Lines, Inc. ("Greyhound"), and their drivers, Nicole D. Dillihay and Francis Lester Stevenson, respectively.*fn1 New Jersey Transit moves to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, New Jersey Transit's motion shall be granted.


On October 2, 2005, Plaintiff Sheilah Wells was a passenger on a Greyhound bus traveling in Atlantic City, New Jersey driven by Defendant Stevenson. (Complaint ¶ 13). The Greyhound bus was traveling south on Missouri Avenue in the far left lane. (Id.). In the lane directly to the right of the Greyhound bus, a bus owned by New Jersey Transit also traveled south on Missouri Avenue. (Complaint ¶ 14). The New Jersey Transit bus was driven by Defendant Dillihay. (Id.). Both the Greyhound bus and the New Jersey Transit bus attempted to take a left turn onto Arctic Avenue, and while turning, the two buses collided with each other. (Complaint ¶¶ 14-15). Plaintiff allegedly suffered "severe and grievous injuries" from the collision. (Complaint ¶ 15).

Almost one year and a half after the accident, on March 21, 2007, counsel for Plaintiff sent a letter to the claims department of New Jersey Transit to provide notice of Plaintiff's injuries and to demand a settlement (the "Settlement Demand"). (Kurtz Decl. at ¶ 5, Ex. B).*fn2 The Settlement Demand enclosed some documentation regarding the extent of Plaintiff's injuries and may have enclosed a copy of the police report that described the accident.*fn3 (Id.). New Jersey Transit responded on April 2, 2007, and informed Plaintiff that, due to her failure to file a Notice of Claim with New Jersey Transit within ninety days of the accident, her claims were barred by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. (Id. at ¶ 6, Ex. C). Prior to receipt of the Settlement Demand, New Jersey Transit did not receive a Notice of Claim from Plaintiff, and to date, Plaintiff has not filed a formal Notice of Claim with New Jersey Transit nor requested leave to do so. (Id. at ¶¶ 4 & 8).

In August 2007, Plaintiff filed suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County alleging a negligence claim against each defendant. Defendants Greyhound and Stevenson (collectively, the "Greyhound Defendants") removed the case to this Court on October 4, 2007. In their answer to the complaint, the Greyhound Defendants cross-claimed against New Jersey Transit, The New Jersey Transit Corporation and Dillihay*fn4 for indemnification and contribution. New Jersey Transit now seeks dismissal of the negligence claim, asserting that Plaintiff failed to timely file a notice of claim pursuant to the New Jersey Tort Claims Act.


Because both parties submitted matters outside the pleadings, this motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) will be treated as one for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) ("If, on motion . . . to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56."); Boyle v. Governor's Veterans Outreach & Assistance Ctr., 925 F.2d 71, 74-75 (3d Cir. 1991).

"[S]ummary judgment is proper 'if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must construe the facts and inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Pollock v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Long Lines, 794 F.2d 860, 864 (3d Cir. 1986). "'With respect to an issue on which the non-moving party bears the burden of proof, the burden on the moving party may be discharged by 'showing'-- that is, pointing out to the district court -- that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.'" Conoshenti v. Public Serv. Elec. & Gas, 364 F.3d 135, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Celotex). The role of the Court is not "to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).


The purpose of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act ("Tort Claims Act") is "to re-establish the immunity of public entities while coherently ameliorating the harsh results of the [sovereign immunity] doctrine." Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111, 115 (2000); see also N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:1-2 (2008). The Tort Claims Act requires that certain procedures be followed prior to bringing suit against the public entity.*fn5 See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:8-3. Of these requirements, a party who seeks to maintain a personal injury claim must file a notice of claim with the public entity within ninety days of the accrual of the cause of action.*fn6 Id. § 59:8-8. The notice of claim must contain detailed information about the claimant and the nature of the claim, including a description of the injury or damage and the amount claimed. See id. § 59:8-4. The Tort Claims Act does provide a limited exception to the ninety day requirement where "extraordinary circumstances" exist for the claimant's dilatoriness and where the public entity or public employee has not been substantially prejudiced by the late filing. Id. § 59:8-9. Under this exception, a court may permit the late filing of the notice of claim within one year of the accrual of the action. Id. Other than this limited exception, a party's failure to file a notice of claim within the ninety day period will forever bar recovery against a public employee or entity. Id. § 59:8-8.

The Tort Claims Act permits a public entity to adopt its own forms specifying the information required to be contained in claims filed against that entity or its employees. Id. § 59:8-6. Pursuant to this statute, New Jersey Transit enacted specific regulations to govern the content and the procedures for filing claims against it. See N.J. Admin. Code §§ 16:88-2.1, 3.2 (2007). These ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.