Preview:

a0653-06.opn.html

N.J.S.A. 59:9-2d. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Hogan in his written opinion of September 8, 2006, with the following comments."> Original Wordprocessor Version (NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) The status of this decision is unpublished

Original Wordprocessor Version This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*. (NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0653-06T20653-06T2 SHEILA HART and WILBERT HART, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWNSHIP OF WILLINGBORO, Defendant-Respondent. ______________________________

Argued: June 27, 2007 - Decided: Before Judges Skillman and King. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Docket No. L-003171-05. Adam C. Davis argued the cause for appellant (DuBois, Sheehan, Hamilton & Levin, attorneys; David M. Weissman, on the brief). Michelle L. Corea argued the cause for respondent (Capehart & Scatchard, attorneys; Ms. Corea, on the brief). PER CURIAM This is an appeal from an order for summary judgment granted on September 8, 2006 by Judge Hogan in this Title 59 case. The judge ruled that as a matter of law the plaintiff did not overcome the burden imposed upon her by the

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a0653-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 1:57:06 PM]

a0653-06.opn.html

threshold for a personal injury recovery under N.J.S.A. 59:9-2d. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Hogan in his written opinion of September 8, 2006, with the following comments. The statute requires that plaintiff shoulder the burden of proving "permanent loss of bodily function." N.J.S.A. 59:92d. As the judge correctly observed: There is a two prong test that must be satisfied for the plaintiff to recover under N.J.S.A.

Download a0653-06.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law