New Jersey Statutes
N.J. Stat. § 59:2-10 (2026)
Public employee conduct--limitation on entity liability
✓ current as of May 2026
A public entity is not liable for the acts or omissions of a public employee constituting a crime, actual fraud, actual malice, or willful misconduct.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 83
cases (42 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Adams v. City of Camden, 461 F. Supp. 2d 263 (D.N.J. 2006).
Adams v. City of Camden, 461 F. Supp. 2d 263 (D.N.J. 2006). “) Defendant claims that Plaintiffs claim for false arrest and imprisonment against the City arising under New Jersey law should be dismissed because Plaintiff alleges Officer Acetti’s misconduct was willful or wanton and the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:2-10…”
Panarello v. City of Vineland, 160 F. Supp. 3d 734 (D.N.J. 2016). “Liability for the City of Vineland for Intentional Torts The City moves for summary judgment on the intentional torts on the grounds that holding it liable would in effect be holding the City vicariously liable for the conduct of the individual officers. *767 (See Muni. Defs.”
Pomykacz v. Borough of West Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (D.N.J. 2006). “” N.J.S.A. § 59:2-10. Thus, as a necessary corollary to the Court’s holding that Officer Ferentz and Mayor Fox are not entitled to state law immunity, the Court also holds that the Borough cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged acts of either Officer Ferentz or Mayor…”
Ward v. Barnes, 545 F. Supp. 2d 400 (D.N.J. 2008). “The Sterling Defendants note correctly that the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, specifically N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:2-10 , precludes public entity liability for the acts of a public employee when those acts constitute a crime, actual fraud, or actual malicious or willful misconduct.”
Merman v. City of Camden, 824 F. Supp. 2d 581 (D.N.J. 2010). “” N.J.S.A. 59:2-10; see Linden v. Spagnola, 2002 WL 1625414 , at *14, 2002 U.”
Trafton v. City of Woodbury, 799 F. Supp. 2d 417 (D.N.J. 2011). “The NJTCA provides, “[a] public entity is not liable for the acts or omissions of a public employee constituting a crime, actual fraud, actual malice, or willful misconduct.”
Endl v. New Jersey, 5 F. Supp. 3d 689 (D.N.J. 2014). “A public employee may generally share the State’s immunity, but is not shielded from claims based on the employee’s willful misconduct.”
Anthony McCormick v. State of New Jersey, 144 A.3d 1260 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016). “59:1-34 (excluding independent contractors from the definition of a public employee); N.J.S.A. 59:2-10 (disallowing vicarious liability where the public employee's actions or inactions comprise a crime, actual fraud, or willful misconduct).”
Usavage v. Port Auth., 932 F. Supp. 2d 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “” N.J.S.A. 59:2-10. Noting that excessive force, assault, and battery are intentional torts, courts have held that public entities cannot held be held liable for such acts by their employees because of the exception for “willful misconduct.”
Stroby v. Egg Harbor Twp., 754 F. Supp. 2d 716 (D.N.J. 2010). “” N.J.S.A. § 59:2-10. Willful misconduct is the commission of a forbidden act with actual knowledge that the act is forbidden.”
Ginamarie Gomes v. the Cnty. of Monmouth & Correct, 134 A.3d 33 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016). “He rejected, as a matter of law, plaintiff's claims of intentional tort against the County as a public entity because N.J.S.A. 59:2-10 directs that public entities are not vicariously liable for acts or omissions of public employees constituting a "crime, actual fraud, actual…”
Farris v. Cnty. of Camden, 61 F. Supp. 2d 307 (D.N.J. 1999). “The New Jersey Tort Claims Act (“NJTCA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:2-10 (West 1998), provides that “[a] public entity is not liable for the acts or omissions of a public employee constituting a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.