A recent New Jersey Appellate Division case underscores the importance proper road maintenance for the use and enjoyment of cyclists in a tragic case involving William Massi, a cyclist whose severe injuries were the result of a poorly maintained public roadway. In a well-written opinion, Judge Sabatino recognized that “bicycle riding has become increasingly prevalent on our public roadways. That increased usage has heightened safety concerns about the condition of roadway surfaces used by bicyclists as well as motor vehicles. Since the 1990s, the New Jersey Department of Transportation (‘DOT’) has published guidelines for the safe condition of road surfaces used by both bicycles and motor vehicles.” For further reference, you can access the NJDOT Bicycle Compatible Roadways and Bikeways Planning and Design Guidelines here and here.

The Estate of William Massi filed a lawsuit against several parties after William’s tragic accident on Wyckoff Mills Road, a two-lane road that straddles Monroe and Cranbury Townships. Despite numerous complaints and frequent patch repairs over several years, the road was plagued with potholes and other dangerous surface irregularities. On April 27, 2017, William swerved to avoid a passing truck and lost control of his bicycle when his tires hit the potholes, leading to a severe fall. Tragically, William passed away while the appeal was pending, although his death was not a direct result of the bicycle accident.

Under New Jersey’s Tort Claims Act (TCA), public entities can be held liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions that the entity owns, maintains, or controls. The key legal questions in this case are:

1. Was the road in a dangerous condition?
2. Did the municipalities have notice of the condition?
3. Was the failure to repair the road palpably unreasonable?

Judge Sabatino’s Opinion

Judge Sabatino, writing for the Appellate Division panel, delivered a comprehensive opinion that reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Monroe and Cranbury Townships. Here are some of the critical points and reasons behind the reversal:

1. Dangerous Condition of the Roadway: Judge Sabatino highlighted that the road’s surface was chronically poor, with numerous complaints and repairs over several years. Maintenance records revealed that the road had been patched “hundreds of times” in the five years preceding the accident, indicating chronic neglect and a persistently dangerous condition.
2. Citizen Complaints: Several citizens had reported the poor condition of the road to the municipalities, making it clear that there was widespread awareness of the problem. These complaints showed that the municipalities had actual knowledge of the road’s hazardous state and the risks it posed to public safety.
3. Expert Testimony: The court found the unrebutted expert testimony of Dr. Wayne Nolte, a civil engineer, compelling. Dr. Nolte stated that the improper repair methods used by the municipalities rendered the road hazardous. He indicated that the repeated cold patch repairs were inadequate and contributed to the persistent dangerous condition.
4. Notice and Actual Knowledge: The court concluded that the facts presented a jury question regarding whether the municipalities had actual and/or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The numerous complaints from citizens and the hundreds of patch repairs demonstrated that a reasonable juror could conclude that the municipalities knew or should have known about the road’s condition.
5. Palpably Unreasonable Condition: The opinion underscored that the municipalities’ failure to properly repair the road, despite knowing its dangerous condition, could be viewed by a jury as palpably unreasonable conduct. The repeated and ineffective repair attempts, combined with the knowledge of the road’s condition, suggested a level of neglect that justified a jury’s consideration.

Distinguishing this case from Polzo I and Polzo II

Judge Sabatino’s opinion carefully distinguished the facts of this case from our Supreme Court’s decisions in Polzo v. County of Essex (“Polzo I” and “Polzo II”):

1. Location of the Accident: In Polzo, the bicycle accident occurred on the shoulder of the road, not on the travel lanes. The Supreme Court emphasized that roadways are primarily intended for vehicular traffic, not for bicyclists riding on the shoulder. In contrast, William Massi’s accident occurred on the travel lanes of Wyckoff Mills Road, which are meant for all types of vehicles, including bicycles and motorcycles.
2. Nature of the Road Condition: The road surface in the Massi case was chronically poor, with documented evidence of hundreds of repairs and multiple complaints. The expert testimony indicated that the condition was hazardous for both bicycles and motorcycles, whereas the Polzo case involved a single depression on the shoulder that was not shown to be hazardous for motor vehicles.
3. Duty to Maintain: Polzo II held that public entities do not have to make road shoulders completely risk-free for bicyclists. However, in Massi’s case, the court recognized that the travel lanes, which are intended for vehicles including bicycles and motorcycles, must be maintained to a safe standard. The extensive and repeated repairs highlighted a duty that reasonable juror could conclude that the municipalities failed to meet.

The Court’s Decision

The appellate court vacated the summary judgment in favor of the Townships, meaning the case would go back to trial for further examination of these issues. This decision underscores the municipalities’ potential liability and the need for public entities to maintain roadways in a condition safe for all users, including bicyclists and motorcyclists.

Why This Case Matters

This case is a stark reminder of the responsibilities that municipalities owe to members of the public in maintaining and repairing public infrastructure. It highlights how neglecting these vital public safety duties can lead to severe, life-altering consequences for cyclists, runners, and motorists. At Shebell & Shebell, we are dedicated to helping those who suffer due the negligect of public entities.

If you or a loved one has been injured due to poorly maintained public property, don’t hesitate to contact us. We are here to fight for your rights and hold negligent parties accountable. Your safety should never be compromised due to the neglect of others.