New Jersey Statutes
N.J. Stat. § 59:4-1 (2026)
Definitions
✓ current as of May 2026
As used in this chapter:
a. "Dangerous condition" means a condition of property that creates a substantial risk of injury when such property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.
b. "Protect against" includes repairing, remedying or correcting a dangerous condition, providing safeguards against a dangerous condition, or warning of a dangerous condition.
c. "Public property" means real or personal property owned or controlled by the public entity, but does not include easements, encroachments and other property that are located on the property of the public entity but are not owned or controlled by the public entity.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Bryce Patrick v. City of Elizabeth, 159 A.3d 906 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017).
Bryce Patrick v. City of Elizabeth, 159 A.3d 906 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “] 9 A-2792-15T1 N.J.S.A. 59:4-1 states that a dangerous condition "means a condition of property that creates a substantial risk of injury when such property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.”
Fluehr v. City of Cape May, 732 A.2d 1035 (N.J. 1999). “It provides: “A public entity is not liable for failure to provide supervision of public recreational facilities; provided, however, that nothing in this section shall exonerate a public entity from liability for failure to protect against a dangerous condition as provided in…”
Posey Ex Rel. Posey v. Bordentown Sewerage Auth., 793 A.2d 607 (N.J. 2002). “2d 1137 (stating that “[t]he word *184 ‘controlled’ in N.J.S.A. 59:4-1(c) should not be construed as extending beyond possessory control.”
Manna v. State, 609 A.2d 757 (N.J. 1992). “A public entity will be liable for a dangerous condition on its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a…”
Hoefler v. United States, 121 F. App'x 464 (3rd Cir. 2005). “Hoefler’s slip-and-fall action, it concluded that there could be no liability as a matter of law based on the heightened standard of negligence under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (“NJTCA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:4-1 et seq. The NJTCA imposes no liability on a public entity for…”
Diana Acevedo Vs. City of Millville (l-0404-18, Cumberland Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021). “59:4-2 because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence establishing the depression or hole constitutes a dangerous condition within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 59:4-1(a). Plaintiff contends the court erred by granting summary judgment because there is a genuine issue of…”
Elaine Trivisano, Etc. Vs. City of Atl. City (l-2538-18, Atl. Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021). “The motion court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, finding the City is immune from liability under the TCA because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence establishing: the screw or nail constitutes a dangerous condition within the meaning of N.J.S.A.…”
Alfred H. Burr v. New Jersey Tpk. Auth. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024). “N.J.S.A. 59:4-1 defines a dangerous condition as a condition that "creates a substantial risk of injury when such property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.”
Jacqueline Terhune Vs. Cnty. of Union (l-2651-15, Union Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “59:1-1 to 12-3, specifically, N.J.S.A. 59:4-1, or that either defendant had actual or constructive notice of such condition.”
Linda Clark v. City of Wildwood (l-0087-20, Cape May Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022). “] Judge Pickering analyzed these elements based on the facts presented and determined "no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the area of the boardwalk where [p]laintiff tripped was a 'dangerous condition' within the A-0110-21 6 meaning of N.J.S.A. 59:4-1." Further, the…”
Jean Paul Joseph v. New Jersey Tpk. Auth. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025). “" Thus, the judge declined to conduct an analysis of plaintiffs' negligent maintenance claim under N.J.S.A. 59:4-1 and N.J.S.A. 59:4-2. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, which the motion judge denied.”
Galina Benimovich v. Borough of Montvale (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2026). “Proof of notice of a dangerous condition present on public property is also an essential element for premises liability under the TCA.”
— N.J. Stat. § 59:4-1(a) — 50 cases
Manna v. State, 609 A.2d 757 (N.J. 1992). “A public entity will be liable for a dangerous condition on its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a…”
Diana Acevedo Vs. City of Millville (l-0404-18, Cumberland Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021). “59:4-2 because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence establishing the depression or hole constitutes a dangerous condition within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 59:4-1(a). Plaintiff contends the court erred by granting summary judgment because there is a genuine issue of…”
Elaine Trivisano, Etc. Vs. City of Atl. City (l-2538-18, Atl. Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021). “The motion court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, finding the City is immune from liability under the TCA because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence establishing: the screw or nail constitutes a dangerous condition within the meaning of N.J.S.A.…”
Linda Clark v. City of Wildwood (l-0087-20, Cape May Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022). “] Judge Pickering analyzed these elements based on the facts presented and determined "no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the area of the boardwalk where [p]laintiff tripped was a 'dangerous condition' within the A-0110-21 6 meaning of N.J.S.A. 59:4-1." Further, the…”
Joao Rocha Vs. State of New Jersey (l-3348-13, Essex Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017).
— N.J. Stat. § 59:4-1(c) — 7 cases
Posey Ex Rel. Posey v. Bordentown Sewerage Auth., 793 A.2d 607 (N.J. 2002). “2d 1137 (stating that “[t]he word *184 ‘controlled’ in N.J.S.A. 59:4-1(c) should not be construed as extending beyond possessory control.”
Bryce Patrick v. City of Elizabeth, 159 A.3d 906 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “] 9 A-2792-15T1 N.J.S.A. 59:4-1 states that a dangerous condition "means a condition of property that creates a substantial risk of injury when such property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.”
Jacqueline Terhune Vs. Cnty. of Union (l-2651-15, Union Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “59:1-1 to 12-3, specifically, N.J.S.A. 59:4-1, or that either defendant had actual or constructive notice of such condition.”
Jeff Carter Vs. Franklin Fire Dist. No.1 (somerset), Custodian of Records (Gov't Records Council) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018).
Edward Gross Vs. Borough of Fort Lee (l-5742-15, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018).
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.