# Vincitore v. New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · July 19, 2001 · 169 N.J. 119

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766356

## Case

- **Full name:** Geraldine Vincitore, Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Michael Vincitore and Geraldine Vincitore, Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, Defendant-Respondent, and New Jersey Transit, Robert Stocker, John Doe, Richard Roe, Abc Corporation, and Def Corporation, Said Names Being Fictitious, Defendants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** July 19, 2001
- **Citations:** 169 N.J. 119; 777 A.2d 9; 2001 N.J. LEXIS 807
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stein
- **Judges:** Zazzali, Stein
- **Cited by:** 81 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766356

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding, in a case where the plaintiff was struck by a train and killed, that a jury could find the defendant’s failure to guard the railroad crossing to be palpably unreasonable because it “knew of the risk, knew that having guards operate the gate eliminated that risk, and k…
- noting that one consideration in deciding whether property is in dangerous condition is if “the property poses a danger to the general public when used in the normal, foreseeable manner”
- explaining the Garrison standard

## Opinion text

STEIN, J.,
concurring.
I concurred in Garrison v. Township of Middletown, 154 N.J. 282, 295-312 , 712 A.2d 1101 (1998), because I disagreed with the Court’s holding that “a condition of public property is not dangerous unless the specific plaintiff that brought the litigation satisfies the 'threshold requirement' that he or she used due care when encountering the property.” Id. at 295 , 712 A.2d 1101 . (Stein, J., concurring). Because I do not read the Court’s opinion in this appeal to rest on the application of that aspect of Garrison with which I disagreed, I join in the Court’s thoughtful and persuasive opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766356. Public record. Not legal advice.