Legal Opinion

Kolitch v. Lindedahl

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided July 22, 1985Published

1DissentHandler, J.

As a general proposition, I agree with the Court that “it cannot be a tort [for the Department of Transportation (DOT or State) ] to communicate accurately a properly established speed limit.” Ante at 494. This proposition, however, is not inconsistent with a theory of liability proposed by plaintiffs in this litigation. Plaintiffs’ evidence suggests the existence of a dangerous condition involving a posted sign that did not accurately communicate the lawful speed limit applicable to the stretch of road in question. Plaintiffs also offer to prove the inapplicability of any immunities that…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Dalehite v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
  2. Johnson v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  3. King v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Richard J. Griffin and Mary Jane Griffin, His Wife v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
  5. Merenoff v. MerenoffSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1978

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API