N.J. Stat. » Title 59 — CLAIMS AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITIES
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 59:4-5 (2026)

Failure to provide ordinary traffic signals--Immunity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable under this chapter for an injury caused by the failure to provide ordinary traffic signals, signs, markings or other similar devices.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (4 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).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bryce Patrick v. City of Elizabeth, 159 A.3d 906 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 7× “The City also argued that N.J.S.A. 59:4-5 provided immunity for a public entity's failure to provide ordinary traffic signs and N.”
Manna v. State, 609 A.2d 757 (N.J. 1992). · cites it 2× “§ 59:4-5 grants immunity for the failure to post warning signals, that issue is no longer in dispute.”
Jessica Tawil Vs. Shivam Travel, Inc. (l-1277-17, Passaic Cnty. & Statewide), No. A-5185-18T3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 7, 2020). · cites it 6× “According to the judge, N.J.S.A. 59:4-5, "specifically and unambiguously prohibits the [c]ourt from finding liability for injuries arising out of the public entity or public employees' failure to provide ordinary traffic signals, signs, markings, or other similar devices.”
Alexander Ferris Vs. Aida Blanco-alquacil (l-0274-16, Middlesex Cnty. & Statewide), No. A-0317-18T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 17, 2019). · cites it 4× “Additionally, for the first time, Middlesex asserts that N.J.S.A. 59:4-5 specifically immunizes a public entity "for an injury caused by the failure to provide ordinary traffic signals, signs, markings or other similar devices.”
Roger Petrocelli v. Miguel E. Bueno, No. A-2548-24 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 3, 2026). · cites it 3× “The City then moved for summary judgment, asserting that they had "absolute immunity" in the matter.”
Robert Koehler Vs. Michael Smith (l-4693-15, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide), No. A-2414-18T4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 1, 2020). · cites it 2× “5 Under N.J.S.A. 59:4-5, "[n]either a public entity nor a public employee is liable .”
I'asia Moreland Vs. Est. of William Parks (l-0227-11, Mercer Cnty. & Statewide), No. A-1645-19 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 28, 2021). · cites it 2× “The judge likewise found plaintiffs' claims premised on the failure to provide warning signs was barred by the traffic signal immunity provided under N.J.S.A. 59:4-5. The judge rejected their claims that 59:4-4, the section of the Act making public entities liable for injuries…”
Jonathan Mcconnachie, Etc. v. Bridgewater- Raritan Reg'l Sch. Dist. (l-0394-19, Somerset Cnty. & Statewide), No. A-1380-20 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 8, 2022). · cites it 2× “59:4-2; and 3) the Borough is immune from liability under N.J.S.A. 59:4-5. After hearing oral argument, the motion court granted summary judgment to the Borough and entered an order dismissing defendants' third- party complaint with prejudice.”
Joao Rocha Vs. State of New Jersey (l-3348-13, Essex Cnty. & Statewide), No. A-0616-15T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 2, 2017). “1977)); N.J.S.A. 59:4-5 (immunity for failure to provide ordinary traffic signals).”
Amanda Gaughran Vs. Cnty. of Warren(l-0242-13, Warren Cnty. & Statewide), No. A-4207-15T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 7, 2017). “Moreover, the adoption of plaintiff's argument, that Duckworth's statement evidenced a duty that was negligently performed by the police, would lead to the unintended and absurd result of denying police immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:4-5 in every case in which they were involved.”
Milagro Arita-mejia Vs. Kevin H. Thomas A-2596-16t4 (l-1992-15, Hudson Cnty. & Statewide), No. A-2596-16T4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 3, 2019). “13 13 We need not resolve in this opinion whether the sign immunity in N.J.S.A. 59:4-5 is confined to situations in which the public entity's failure to install a sign is the result of governmental discretion.”
David B. Wilson v. City of Newark, No. A-1709-23 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 23, 2025). “Second, to the extent that plaintiff argues that the City should have placed more than one sign, or should have placed the existing sign in a different location, that argument is precluded by the TCA as a matter of law.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.