TRENTON, N.J. (Legal Newsline) - Parents who sued a New Jersey school district over the shooting death of their 10-year-old son at a high school football game weren’t subject to a strict 90-day deadline after incident for initiating their claim, an appeals court ruled. The deadline for the parents actually began when their son died five days later, the court said.
Interpreting a wrinkle in New Jersey statutes governing lawsuits against government entities for the first time, the New Jersey Appellate Division of Superior Court, in a Jan. 20 decision, said the deadline for parents to sue for emotional distress and other injuries stemming from the death of a child is tolled until the child dies.
Angela Tennant was attending a football game at Pleasantville High School on Nov. 15, 2019, when someone shot into the stands, hitting her son, Micah Dunmore. Micah died on Nov. 20, 2019.
Tennant emailed notice of tort claims to the Pleasantville Board of Education on Feb. 14, 2020, 86 days after Micah’s death. She notified the board she would be suing on behalf of the boy’s estate as well as suing for negligent infliction of emotional distress against herself.
There was some jousting early on as the school board argued Tennant’s notice of claim exceeded the 90-day deadline under state law because it was filed 91 days after the shooting. Examining prior decisions, the appeals court said New Jersey legislators clearly intended for parents and children to have the same deadlines for filing claims and in this case the child’s wrongful-death claim accrued upon his death.
Another law tolls the two-year tort statute of limitations for children until they reach the age of 18, for example. New Jersey courts have interpreted that to mean the statute of limitations for parents is tolled as well, since their claims are based on the same facts as those of the child.
While tolling the claims notification deadline could thwart the goals of allowing the defense to promptly investigate claims and prepare a defense, the court said, legislators apparently “determined those policies were not paramount.”
To impose a shorter time limit on the parents “would result in the absurd situation that the parent's cause of action would likely be brought before a judge and jury for trial, perhaps years or decades before the child's lawsuit was initiated,” the appeals court concluded. “This runs contrary to the principles underlying the entire controversy doctrine and promoting judicial economy.”