special relationship exception in New Jersey

2001We observed that in Lee v. Doe, 232 N.J.Super. 569 , 557 A. 2d 1045 (App.Div.1989), there was a discussion of California cases that interpreted that state's version of the TCA and established the special relationship exception.

2001We observed that in Lee v. Doe, 232 N.J.Super. 569 , 557 A. 2d 1045 (App.Div.1989), there was a discussion of California cases that interpreted that state's version of the TCA and established the special relationship exception.

1986Nor does this case involve such an aggravated set of circumstances as to call for departure from the general rule. [ 190 N.J.

1984Milcarek found no such fiduciary duty between the PIP beneficiary and the PIP carrier in the situation in that case as would fall within the special relationship exception to the general rule prohibiting the award of punitive damages in contract cases, 190 N.J.

2025The special relationship exception exists when "the State takes a person into its custody and holds [them] there against [their] will." DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 199-200 .

2019Prior to and since McIntosh, both New Jersey courts and our Legislature expanded the special relationship rule to include the duty to warn potential victims of contagious or genetic diseases. 6 McIntosh led to the enactment of N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-16, which immunized licensed medical professionals "from any civil liability for a patient's violent act against another person or against himself unless the practitioner has incurred a duty to warn and protect the potential victim[.]" N.J.S.A. 2A:62A- 16(b) explains a duty to warn and protect arises if "[t]he patient has 6 For example, in Safer, the defe

2001In Blunt , we concluded that a special relationship exception was important to California because "`[t]he question of the applicability of a statutory immunity does not even arise [under California law] until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and would thus be liable in the absence of such immunity.'" Id. at 506 , 707 A. 2d 1021 (citing Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal. 3d 197, 202 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 , 649 P. 2d 894 (1982)).

2001In Blunt , we concluded that a special relationship exception was important to California because "`[t]he question of the applicability of a statutory immunity does not even arise [under California law] until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and would thus be liable in the absence of such immunity.'" Id. at 506 , 707 A. 2d 1021 (citing Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal. 3d 197, 202 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 , 649 P. 2d 894 (1982)).

2001In Blunt , we concluded that a special relationship exception was important to California because "`[t]he question of the applicability of a statutory immunity does not even arise [under California law] until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and would thus be liable in the absence of such immunity.'" Id. at 506 , 707 A. 2d 1021 (citing Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal. 3d 197, 202 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 , 649 P. 2d 894 (1982)).

2001In Blunt , we concluded that a special relationship exception was important to California because "`[t]he question of the applicability of a statutory immunity does not even arise [under California law] until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and would thus be liable in the absence of such immunity.'" Id. at 506 , 707 A. 2d 1021 (citing Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal. 3d 197, 202 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 , 649 P. 2d 894 (1982)).

1998The existence of an alleged special relationship does not negate the applicability of immunity; rather, it simply defines whether there is a duty that has been breached. [Masters v. San Bernardino County Employees, 32 Cal.App.4th 30 , 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 860 , 869 n. 10 (1995) (emphasis added).] See also Whitcombe v. County of Yolo, 73 Cal.App.3d 698 , 141 Cal.Rptr. 189, 192 (1977) (rejecting the assumption that if a special relationship is established, there is no need to consider immunity, and thereby rejecting the related assumption that the special relationship doctrine gives rise to government

1998The existence of an alleged special relationship does not negate the applicability of immunity; rather, it simply defines whether there is a duty that has been breached. [Masters v. San Bernardino County Employees, 32 Cal.App.4th 30 , 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 860 , 869 n. 10 (1995) (emphasis added).] See also Whitcombe v. County of Yolo, 73 Cal.App.3d 698 , 141 Cal.Rptr. 189, 192 (1977) (rejecting the assumption that if a special relationship is established, there is no need to consider immunity, and thereby rejecting the related assumption that the special relationship doctrine gives rise to government

1985Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler, supra, 93 N.J. 324 (independent auditor whose negligence resulted in inaccurate public financial statement held liable to plaintiff who bought stock in company for purposes of sale of business to company; stock subsequently proved to be worthless); surveyors, see Rozny v. Marnul, 43 Ill.2d 54 , 250 N.E.2d 656 (1969) (surveyor whose negligence resulted in error in depicting boundary of lot held liable to remote purchaser); termite inspectors, see Hardy v. Carmichael, 207 Cal.App.2d 218 , 24 Cal.Rptr. 475 (Cal.Ct.

1985Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler, supra, 93 N.J. 324 (independent auditor whose negligence resulted in inaccurate public financial statement held liable to plaintiff who bought stock in company for purposes of sale of business to company; stock subsequently proved to be worthless); surveyors, see Rozny v. Marnul, 43 Ill.2d 54 , 250 N.E.2d 656 (1969) (surveyor whose negligence resulted in error in depicting boundary of lot held liable to remote purchaser); termite inspectors, see Hardy v. Carmichael, 207 Cal.App.2d 218 , 24 Cal.Rptr. 475 (Cal.Ct.

1985Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler, supra, 93 N.J. 324 (independent auditor whose negligence resulted in inaccurate public financial statement held liable to plaintiff who bought stock in company for purposes of sale of business to company; stock subsequently proved to be worthless); surveyors, see Rozny v. Marnul, 43 Ill.2d 54 , 250 N.E.2d 656 (1969) (surveyor whose negligence resulted in error in depicting boundary of lot held liable to remote purchaser); termite inspectors, see Hardy v. Carmichael, 207 Cal.App.2d 218 , 24 Cal.Rptr. 475 (Cal.Ct.

1985Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler, supra, 93 N.J. 324 (independent auditor whose negligence resulted in inaccurate public financial statement held liable to plaintiff who bought stock in company for purposes of sale of business to company; stock subsequently proved to be worthless); surveyors, see Rozny v. Marnul, 43 Ill.2d 54 , 250 N.E.2d 656 (1969) (surveyor whose negligence resulted in error in depicting boundary of lot held liable to remote purchaser); termite inspectors, see Hardy v. Carmichael, 207 Cal.App.2d 218 , 24 Cal.Rptr. 475 (Cal.Ct.

1985Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler, supra, 93 N.J. 324 (independent auditor whose negligence resulted in inaccurate public financial statement held liable to plaintiff who bought stock in company for purposes of sale of business to company; stock subsequently proved to be worthless); surveyors, see Rozny v. Marnul, 43 Ill.2d 54 , 250 N.E.2d 656 (1969) (surveyor whose negligence resulted in error in depicting boundary of lot held liable to remote purchaser); termite inspectors, see Hardy v. Carmichael, 207 Cal.App.2d 218 , 24 Cal.Rptr. 475 (Cal.Ct.

1985Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler, supra, 93 N.J. 324 (independent auditor whose negligence resulted in inaccurate public financial statement held liable to plaintiff who bought stock in company for purposes of sale of business to company; stock subsequently proved to be worthless); surveyors, see Rozny v. Marnul, 43 Ill.2d 54 , 250 N.E.2d 656 (1969) (surveyor whose negligence resulted in error in depicting boundary of lot held liable to remote purchaser); termite inspectors, see Hardy v. Carmichael, 207 Cal.App.2d 218 , 24 Cal.Rptr. 475 (Cal.Ct.