New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 59:3-2 (2026)

Discretionary activities

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

a. A public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from the exercise of judgment or discretion vested in him;

b. A public employee is not liable for legislative or judicial action or inaction, or administrative action or inaction of a legislative or judicial nature;

c. A public employee is not liable for the exercise of discretion in determining whether to seek or whether to provide the resources necessary for the purchase of equipment, the construction or maintenance of facilities, the hiring of personnel and, in general, the provision of adequate governmental services;

d. A public employee is not liable for the exercise of discretion when, in the face of competing demands, he determines whether and how to utilize or apply existing resources, including those allocated for equipment, facilities and personnel unless a court concludes that the determination of the public employee was palpably unreasonable.

Nothing in this section shall exonerate a public employee for negligence arising out of his acts or omissions in carrying out his ministerial functions.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 38 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Ward v. Barnes, 545 F. Supp. 2d 400 (D.N.J. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ward v. Barnes, 545 F. Supp. 2d 400 (D.N.J. 2008). · cites it 7× “The immunities available to public employees, generally, are detailed in N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:3-2 : a. A public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from the exercise of judgment or discretion vested in him; b.”

O'BRIEN v. Borough of Woodbury Heights, 679 F. Supp. 429 (D.N.J. 1988). · cites it 8× “8 (E) Whether Defendants Are Entitled To Immunity On Plaintiffs’ Additional State Law Claims Under The New Jersey Tort Claims Act? Defendants move for summary judgment on plaintiffs additional state law claims, arguing that the individual defendants are immune from claims…”

Chatman v. Hall, 608 A.2d 263 (N.J. 1992). · cites it 4× “Thus section 59:3-2(d) goes on to provide: Nothing in this section shall exonerate a public employee for negligence arising out of his acts or omissions in carrying out his ministerial functions.”

N.E., as Legal Guardian for Infant J v. v. State of, 156 A.3d 44 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 3× “N.J.S.A. 59:3-2(a). At the charge conference, the Division also argued it was entitled to qualified immunity under N.”

Rachel A. Parsons v. Mullica Twp. Bd. of Educ., 111 A.3d 144 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015). · cites it 2× “The trial court apparently agreed, citing N.J.S.A. 59:3-2 in ruling that the TCA "does not provide immunity for Ms.”

Ryans v. New Jersey Com'n for the Blind, Etc., 542 F. Supp. 841 (D.N.J. 1982). · cites it 2× “In addition, defendants move to dismiss the action as to defendant Krajczar on the ground that she is immune from suit under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:3-2(b). Plaintiff cross-moves for leave to file an amended complaint setting forth an additional count under…”

Popow v. City of Margate, 476 F. Supp. 1237 (D.N.J. 1979). “N.J.S.A. 59:3-2. Biagi’s decision to fire his gun could be construed to fall within that provision.”

Nos. 95-5067, 95-5078, 72 F.3d 385 (3rd Cir. 1995). “36 Finally, defendants maintain that they are immunized from any liability in this case by N.J.S.A. 59:3-2 and 59:2-3, which confer immunity to public entities for the exercise of judgment or discretion under certain circumstances.”

Danny Caicedo v. Fabian Caicedo, 110 A.3d 969 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015). “" N.J.S.A. 59:3-2. Defendants argue that they are entitled to the good-faith immunity bestowed by N.”

Rosario v. City of Union City Police Dep't, 131 F. App'x 785 (3rd Cir. 2005). “This is not a case in which police officers, faced with two emergencies and limited resources, exercised the judgment vested in them to determine that one situation presents a more compelling need than another.”

Newark Watershed Conservation & Dev. Corp. v. Watkins-Brashear (In re Newark Watershed Conservation & Dev. Corp.), 560 B.R. 129 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2016). · cites it 25× “NWCDC counters that Booker is not entitled to the immunity afforded a public employee by the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. § 59:3-2 because the statute was meant to protect a public employee from a private suit for damages, not to protect a public employee from a suit by a public…”

Est. of Hiram A. Gonzalez v. The City of Jersey City (084381) (Hudson Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. 2021). · cites it 6× “59:2-3, N.J.S.A. 59:3-2, [the judge] must tailor both the final jury charge and the verdict sheet so the jury can make the appropriate fact findings and evaluate the party’s liability exposure using the proper standard of care.”

Show all 38 citing cases →

— N.J. Stat. § 59:3-2(a) — 17 cases

O'BRIEN v. Borough of Woodbury Heights, 679 F. Supp. 429 (D.N.J. 1988). “8 (E) Whether Defendants Are Entitled To Immunity On Plaintiffs’ Additional State Law Claims Under The New Jersey Tort Claims Act? Defendants move for summary judgment on plaintiffs additional state law claims, arguing that the individual defendants are immune from claims…”

N.E., as Legal Guardian for Infant J v. v. State of, 156 A.3d 44 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “N.J.S.A. 59:3-2(a). At the charge conference, the Division also argued it was entitled to qualified immunity under N.”

Newark Watershed Conservation & Dev. Corp. v. Watkins-Brashear (In re Newark Watershed Conservation & Dev. Corp.), 560 B.R. 129 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2016). “NWCDC counters that Booker is not entitled to the immunity afforded a public employee by the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. § 59:3-2 because the statute was meant to protect a public employee from a private suit for damages, not to protect a public employee from a suit by a public…”

Damien Rose Bruno Vs. Jefferson Street Assocs., LLC Madelyn Calderon Vs. Jefferson Street Assocs., LLC (l-3060-14 & L-3061-14, Hudson Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020).

George E. Pearson v. Borough of Keansburg (l-4135-18, Monmouth Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022).

— N.J. Stat. § 59:3-2(b) — 4 cases

Ryans v. New Jersey Com'n for the Blind, Etc., 542 F. Supp. 841 (D.N.J. 1982). “In addition, defendants move to dismiss the action as to defendant Krajczar on the ground that she is immune from suit under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:3-2(b). Plaintiff cross-moves for leave to file an amended complaint setting forth an additional count under…”

New Jersey Chinese Cmty. Ctr. Vs. Vincent Dominach (l-0014-17, Somerset Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019).

J.W. Vs. Twp. of Livingston (l-4228-17, Hudson Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020).

— N.J. Stat. § 59:3-2(c) — 1 case

— N.J. Stat. § 59:3-2(d) — 7 cases

Chatman v. Hall, 608 A.2d 263 (N.J. 1992). “Thus section 59:3-2(d) goes on to provide: Nothing in this section shall exonerate a public employee for negligence arising out of his acts or omissions in carrying out his ministerial functions.”

Est. of Hiram A. Gonzalez v. The City of Jersey City (084381) (Hudson Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. 2021). “59:2-3, N.J.S.A. 59:3-2, [the judge] must tailor both the final jury charge and the verdict sheet so the jury can make the appropriate fact findings and evaluate the party’s liability exposure using the proper standard of care.”

L.T. Vs. Twp. of Ocean Bd. of Educ. (l-1284-15, Monmouth Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020).

Est. of Hiram a. Gonzalez, Etc. Vs. the City of Jersey City (l-2857-16, Hudson Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020).

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.