Court Opinion

ID: 9517749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:30:53.776186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:18.143550
License: Public Domain

HANDLER, J.,
concurring.
I agree with the Court’s opinion that the Union Lake Dam should not be considered “unimproved property” within the immunity provisions of N.J.S.A. 59:4-8 and -9. The necessity for ongoing management and regular maintenance and the special risks engendered by such structures, unique in their *274potential for fatal consequences, compel a determination that the State shall not be immune from liability when its conduct is “palpably unreasonable” with regard to a “dangerous condition” of such structures as the Union Lake Dam.
I would note further that these special and peculiar risks implicate the supervisory responsibility of State-government officials, otherwise entrusted with the care and maintenance of these dams, which would encompass the manner in which members of the public come into contact with the dam and are permitted to use it. This surely would include responsibility for the recreational activities that are made available to the public in connection with the dam, as well as the public’s safety in engaging in these activities. Consequently, the conduct of officials in the discharge of that responsibility would fall within the statutory intendment of “supervision” under the provisions of N.J.S.A. 59:3-11.
I appreciate that the pleadings and the record of the case do not adequately present the issue of negligent supervision. But the issue is clearly relevant in light of the determination to remand the case for a retrial. It is, therefore, not amiss to observe that the evidence of record, although not fully developed, suggests that there is a supervisory obligation on the part of the government officers and employees responsible for inspecting the dam and surrounding area that extends to the recreational activities taking place on the dam, including the safety of persons engaging in those activities.
It may be that general policing activities, involving , only law and regulatory enforcement over fishing, do not constitute supervision for the purpose of N.J.S.A. 59:3-11. Arguably such supervision may not be demonstrated only by knowledge of conservation officers that people fished near the dam coupled with an awareness of the dangers entailed in that activity. See Morris v. Jersey City, 179 N.J.Super. 460 (App.Div.1981). However, while the mere presence or absence of supervisory and regulatory personnel alone probably does not equate with *275supervision, it is at least debatable whether the enforcement of the regulations governing fishing, which occurred at Union Lake, does not also encompass responsibility for the safety of fishermen.
Moreover, the facts may be taken to indicate more than mere awareness on the part of government employees that people were fishing in the vicinity of the dam and that such activity could be dangerous. Affirmative and direct steps were taken with respect to these activities. Thus, the government employees took specific measures to alert those members of the public using the spillway area about its hazards. Two warning signs bearing the legend “Danger, Keep Away” were posted facing the lake on either side of the spillway; a safety cable was erected, stretching across the spillway approximately twenty-five feet in front of the dam; and the inspection of the lake and area surrounding the spillway by state conservation officers was increased to twice a day during the summer months, presumably because of the increased recreational use of this area. It is reasonably inferable that these supervisory measures and safety precautions were designed to ensure not only the integrity of the structure but the safety of persons engaged in activities involving the use of the dam. These considerations might confirm the view that the State has undertaken to supervise the safety of those engaged in the recreational use of the dam. Morris, supra, 179 N.J.Super. at 464 (“A public entity does not lose its immunity without some employee conduct, no matter how minute, evidencing an intention to supervise by way of monitoring, entering into or becoming a part of the activity itself from which the injury sprang.”) (emphasis added).
Whether preventive and cautionary measures taken by the State officials were sufficient to fulfill their responsibility to the public is an issue that plaintiff should have the opportunity to address and a jury determine. The unique risks posed by structures such as the Union Lake Dam, in combination with the facts of this case, which strongly indicate that the State has *276undertaken to supervise the safety of those engaged in the recreational use of the dam and may have done so negligently, lead me to conclude that plaintiff, in addition to being permitted the opportunity to prove that the death of her husband and her own personal injuries were the result of the State’s “palpably unreasonable” conduct with regard to a “dangerous condition of its public property,” N.J.S.A. 59:4-2, should also be permitted to prove that such injuries were the product of negligent supervision by government employees in accordance with N.J.S.A. 59:3-11.