Full Service Law Firm in Mt. Laurel Township, NJ | Capehart Scatchard

Articles

Articles › Plaintiff’s Claim against School District based upon Sexual Abuse by Teacher Barred Due to Failure to Timely File Tort Claims Notice

Plaintiff’s Claim against School District based upon Sexual Abuse by Teacher Barred Due to Failure to Timely File Tort Claims Notice

October 31, 2017
By Betsy G. Ramos

Plaintiff (“J.D.”) alleged that his high school teacher sexually abused him between 1983 and 1987. J.D. began having panic attacks in June 2013, which led to his hospitalization. He was diagnosed with panic disorder and either major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder. In May 2015, in psychotherapy, he disclosed his high school teacher’s relationship and his anger for the first time. In April 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against his high school teacher and the school district. In J.D. v. D.R., 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2528 (App. Div. Oct. 6, 2017), the issue was whether plaintiff demonstrated extraordinary circumstances to justify the late filing.

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, to pursue a tort claim against a public entity, a plaintiff must file a notice of his claim within 90 days of its accrual. If the plaintiff fails to timely file his notice within the 90 days, the plaintiff may seek leave with the court up to one year after the accrual of his claim if he can provide sufficient reasons constituting extraordinary circumstances for his failure to file a notice of claim within this statutory time period. (N.J.S.A. 59:8-9.)

Plaintiff claimed that his psychological impairments constituted sufficient reasons to excuse the late filing. The trial court judge found this reason inadequate to meet the “extraordinary circumstances” requirement and denied his request to file a late notice of tort claim.

The Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s decision to deny the motion for leave to file a late notice of tort claim. The “extraordinary circumstances” standard was added by the Legislature in 1994 to replace the “fairly permissive standard” to this “more demanding” standard. The plaintiff’s reasons for not filing a timely notice of claim were insufficient to overcome this demanding standard. Thus, the Appellate Division found that the trial court judge correctly denied his motion.

About the Author:

Betsy G. Ramos


Ms. Ramos is an experienced litigator with over 35 years experience handling diverse matters. Practice areas include tort defense, business litigation, estate litigation, tort claims and civil rights defense, construction litigation, insurance coverage, employment litigation, shareholder disputes, and general litigation.

Ms. Ramos has expanded her practice to serve as a mediator in New Jersey civil lawsuits, including volunteer mediation work for the Burlington County court system for Special Civil Part and municipal court matters.

For the years 2020-2026, Ms. Ramos was selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® in the practice area of Litigation – Insurance. The attorneys on this list are selected based upon the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.  A complete description of The Best Lawyers in America® methodology can be viewed here.

Beginning in 2021, Capehart Scatchard and Ms. Ramos have received the “Best Law Firm” ranking in the area of Litigation – Insurance (Metro, Tier 3) published by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®.  Law firms included on the list are recognized for professional excellence with consistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. To be eligible for a ranking, a firm must have at least one attorney who has been included in the current edition of Best Lawyers in America®, which recognizes the top five percent of practicing lawyers in the United States.  Betsy Ramos (Litigation – Insurance) has been selected to the Best Lawyers in America® list every year since 2020.  For a description of the selection methodology please click here.

No aspect of this advertisement has been submitted to or approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Capehart Blogs

Categories

Share