New Jersey Statutes
N.J. Stat. § 59:3-14 (2026)
Public employee immunity--exception
✓ current as of May 2026
a. Nothing in this act shall exonerate a public employee from liability if it is established that his conduct was outside the scope of his employment or constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct.
b. Nothing in this act shall exonerate a public employee from the full measure of recovery applicable to a person in the private sector if it is established that his conduct was outside the scope of his employment or constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 85
cases (41 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D.N.J. 2008).
Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D.N.J. 2008). “” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:3-14 . If Kounelis’s allegations are found to be true, then Defendants clearly acted *534 willfully and with actual malice and would not be entitled to immunity.”
Ward v. Barnes, 545 F. Supp. 2d 400 (D.N.J. 2008). “Although Barnes argues that he is immune from liability for conduct that was merely negligent pursuant to the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, he points only to an exception, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:3-14 , and argues that it does not permit claims for negligence.”
Endl v. New Jersey, 5 F. Supp. 3d 689 (D.N.J. 2014). “N.J.S.A. 59:3-14 (“Nothing in this act shall exonerate a public employee from liability if it is established that his conduct was outside the scope of his employment or constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct.”
Trafton v. City of Woodbury, 799 F. Supp. 2d 417 (D.N.J. 2011). “4, 2010) (quoting N.J.S.A. 59:3-14). The Court must similarly conclude that immunity is also unavailable under NJSA § 59:5-2.”
Rk Ex Rel. Skb v. Yale Schs., Inc., 621 F. Supp. 2d 188 (D.N.J. 2008). “As Plaintiffs argue, however, each of these immunity provisions is subject to the exception contained in N.J.S.A. 59:3-14, which provides that “[njothing in this act shall exonerate a public employee from liability if it is established that his conduct was outside the scope of…”
Mantz v. Chain, 239 F. Supp. 2d 486 (D.N.J. 2002). “” N.J.S.A. § 59:3-14(a). Willful misconduct is “‘the commission of a forbidden act with actual (not imputed) knowledge that the act is forbidden’ .”
Evans v. Gloucester Twp., 124 F. Supp. 3d 340 (D.N.J. 2015). “not apply to her tort claims against Defendant Mayer because he acted outside the scope of his official duties to inflict intentional harm on Plaintiff is meritless and directly contrary to the holding in Velez:’ Because the.”
N.E., as Legal Guardian for Infant J v. v. State of, 156 A.3d 44 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “59:3-14(a) provides as follows: "Nothing in this act shall exonerate a public employee from liability if it is established that his conduct was outside the scope of his employment or constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct.”
Hill v. Algor, 85 F. Supp. 2d 391 (D.N.J. 2000). “See N.J.S.A. 59:3-14 (The New Jersey Tort Claims Act does not shield a public employee from liability “if it is established that his conduct was outside the scope of his employment 31 or constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct.”
Pomykacz v. Borough of West Wildwood, 438 F. Supp. 2d 504 (D.N.J. 2006). “” N.J.S.A. § 59:3-14. Officer Ferentz’s actions, if proven true, fall within the scope of willful misconduct and therefore she is not entitled to immunity under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act.”
Lassoff v. New Jersey, 414 F. Supp. 2d 483 (D.N.J. 2006). “Suits against a public officer in his individual capacity are subject to the notice provisions of the TCA even though the public officer is not entitled to immunity under N.J.S.A. § 59:3-14. See Velez, 180 N.J. at 289, 293 , 850 A.”
Davis v. Twp. of Paulsboro, 371 F. Supp. 2d 611 (D.N.J. 2005). “N.J.S.A. 59:3-14, which was in effect both before and after the 1994 amendments, was also relevant in Velez .”
— N.J. Stat. § 59:3-14(a) — 31 cases
Mantz v. Chain, 239 F. Supp. 2d 486 (D.N.J. 2002). “” N.J.S.A. § 59:3-14(a). Willful misconduct is “‘the commission of a forbidden act with actual (not imputed) knowledge that the act is forbidden’ .”
N.E., as Legal Guardian for Infant J v. v. State of, 156 A.3d 44 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “59:3-14(a) provides as follows: "Nothing in this act shall exonerate a public employee from liability if it is established that his conduct was outside the scope of his employment or constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct.”
Davis v. Twp. of Paulsboro, 371 F. Supp. 2d 611 (D.N.J. 2005). “N.J.S.A. 59:3-14, which was in effect both before and after the 1994 amendments, was also relevant in Velez .”
Newark Watershed Conservation & Dev. Corp. v. Watkins-Brashear (In re Newark Watershed Conservation & Dev. Corp.), 560 B.R. 129 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2016).
J.R. v. New Jersey State Parole Bd. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2023).
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.