New Jersey Statutes
N.J. Stat. § 59:2-2 (2026)
Liability of public entity
✓ current as of May 2026
a. A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of a public employee within the scope of his employment in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.
b. A public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of a public employee where the public employee is not liable.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 104
cases (48 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Michaels v. State of New Jersey, 968 F. Supp. 230 (D.N.J. 1997).
Michaels v. State of New Jersey, 968 F. Supp. 230 (D.N.J. 1997). “N.J.S.A. 59:2-2(a) (emphasis added). The Act defines a “public employee” as “an employee of a public entity.”
O'BRIEN v. Borough of Woodbury Heights, 679 F. Supp. 429 (D.N.J. 1988). “Defendants further contend that the Borough and the County vicariously assume the immunity of their employees by virtue of N.J.S.A. § 59:2-2, which provides, “[a] public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of a public employee where the public…”
Doe v. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs., 148 F. Supp. 2d 462 (D.N.J. 2001). “See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:2-2 . Neither a public employee, nor a public entity, is liable for an injury that results from the exercise of discretion or judgment vested in the employee or entity.”
Ward v. Barnes, 545 F. Supp. 2d 400 (D.N.J. 2008). “See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:2-2 (b) (“A public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of a public employee where the public employee is not liable.”
Ra-King Allen v. New Jersey State Police, 974 F.3d 497 (3rd Cir. 2020). “26 (quoting N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:2-2 ). However, the New Jersey Tort Claims Act does not constitute waiver of immunity from suit in federal court; the statute reflects a limited waiver only of the State’s immunity from suit in state court.”
Adams v. City of Camden, 461 F. Supp. 2d 263 (D.N.J. 2006). “at 10-11) (quoting N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:2-2 ). Both parties’ arguments miss the mark.”
Benjamin v. East Orange Police Dep't, 937 F. Supp. 2d 582 (D.N.J. 2013). “Pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:2-2 , a “public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of a public employee within the scope of his employment in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.”
Lomando v. United States, 667 F.3d 363 (3rd Cir. 2011). “1989) (“In cases not involving the [Tort Claims Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:2-2 (West 2011) ] 21 in which a plaintiff seeks recovery on the theory of respondeat superior, there is no requirement that the plaintiff join as a defendant the individual upon whose act or failure to act…”
L.E. & P.T. Vs. the Plainfield Pub. Sch. Dist. Vs. A.D. & R.B. (l-2513-15, Union Cnty. & Statewide) (record Impounded), 194 A.3d 105 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). “But, the Act states generally that "[a] public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of a public employee within the scope of his employment in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.”
Wright v. State, 778 A.2d 443 (N.J. 2001). “[Comment to N.J.S.A 59:2-2.] In McAndrew, supra, 33 N.”
Anthony McCormick v. State of New Jersey, 144 A.3d 1260 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016). “See N.J.S.A. 59:2-2 (generally providing for such vicarious liability for the acts of public employees); but see N.”
Usavage v. Port Auth., 932 F. Supp. 2d 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “” N.J.S.A. 59:2-2(a). However, “[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.”
— N.J. Stat. § 59:2-2(a) — 35 cases
Michaels v. State of New Jersey, 968 F. Supp. 230 (D.N.J. 1997). “N.J.S.A. 59:2-2(a) (emphasis added). The Act defines a “public employee” as “an employee of a public entity.”
Usavage v. Port Auth., 932 F. Supp. 2d 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “” N.J.S.A. 59:2-2(a). However, “[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.”
Merman v. City of Camden, 824 F. Supp. 2d 581 (D.N.J. 2010).
Ewing v. Cumberland Cnty., 152 F. Supp. 3d 269 (D.N.J. 2015).
L.E. & P.T. Vs. the Plainfield Pub. Sch. Dist. Vs. A.D. & R.B. (l-2513-15, Union Cnty. & Statewide) (record Impounded), 194 A.3d 105 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). “But, the Act states generally that "[a] public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of a public employee within the scope of his employment in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.”
— N.J. Stat. § 59:2-2(b) — 23 cases
Davis v. City of Camden, 657 F. Supp. 396 (D.N.J. 1987).
Rk Ex Rel. Skb v. Yale Schs., Inc., 621 F. Supp. 2d 188 (D.N.J. 2008).
Tice v. Cramer, 604 A.2d 183 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992).
Carolyn L. Baburka Vs. State of New Jersey (l-1266-18, Monmouth Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021).
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.