fbpx

OPINION | When roads buckle and the law shrugs: A case for accountability on I-287

Michael J. Epstein//June 27, 2025//

Road repair

PHOTO: DEPOSIT PHOTOS

Road repair

PHOTO: DEPOSIT PHOTOS

OPINION | When roads buckle and the law shrugs: A case for accountability on I-287

Michael J. Epstein//June 27, 2025//

Listen to this article

On Tuesday afternoon, in the searing heat of a record-shattering 103-degree day, the southbound lanes of Interstate 287 in Montville and Riverdale began to buckle. Not metaphorically — literally. Concrete slabs rose and cracked apart as bridge joints expanded beyond tolerance. The result: chaos on the roadway, serious vehicle damage, traffic disruptions, and, according to early reports, injuries.

On Wednesday, things got worse. A new section of south buckled in Morris County and all lanes were closing Wednesday afternoon (with other lanes later reopening).

New Jerseyans are right to ask: Who’s responsible when our highways quite literally break under pressure? 

Unfortunately, that question rarely gets a straight answer — especially when the answer may involve , New Jersey’s Tort Claims Act. Designed to protect public entities from a flood of litigation, the law provides wide immunities for the state and its departments. If this sounds like an uphill battle for any injured motorist on I-287 this week, it is. But that doesn’t mean we should stop asking questions — or demanding better.

What we know

Let’s begin with what we know. According to the New Jersey Department of Transportation, the cause of the buckling was extreme heat. Bridge joints – already vulnerable points in the highway – expanded so significantly that they dislodged slabs of concrete. In Montville, all southbound lanes closed at 3 p.m., with only partial reopening by 4:30 p.m. As of Friday, crews are still conducting repairs, with no clear timeline for completion. Drivers are being warned to “expect delays” — as if that’s the most urgent concern.

Now let’s talk about what this means legally. Under Title 59, New Jersey public entities are generally immune from liability for injuries caused by roadway conditions unless certain strict requirements are met. Among them: that the government had actual or constructive notice of a “dangerous condition,” had time to correct it, and failed to do so. For road design defects, the immunity is even stronger — unless you can prove the plan itself was palpably unreasonable and that public employees ignored evidence of a foreseeable danger.

Who’s to blame?

So, is this buckling incident an “act of God”? Or is it the result of outdated , poor inspection protocols and a state transportation system ill-prepared for the reality of ? 

It’s a tough case, legally speaking. But it’s not a mystery morally.

We can’t treat infrastructure failure like a lightning strike – random, rare, and unpreventable – when the science tells us otherwise.

Extreme heat events are becoming more frequent. Concrete expansion on highways isn’t a surprise; it’s textbook physics. What’s surprising is that in 2025, our roads are still being built – and maintained – without sufficient safeguards against predictable climate stress. 

This is where government liability should begin — not end.

If there’s evidence that had warning signs in recent inspections, or that similar buckling had occurred on these stretches in past heatwaves, or that the bridge joints were overdue for retrofitting, that’s not an act of God. That’s negligence.

And even if state immunity makes these cases harder to win, it doesn’t make them meritless. Hard cases, as the saying goes, make good law. It’s time New Jersey courts and lawmakers take a hard look at whether Title 59 is doing more to protect public entities than it is to protect the public.

Real consequences

Let’s not forget that behind every lane closure is a real person. Someone whose car was damaged; someone who may have been injured when their tires hit broken concrete at highway speed; someone who now has medical bills, lost wages, and no idea how to recover any of it.

Those people deserve answers. They deserve transparency. And they deserve the chance to pursue justice — even if the state would prefer to wash its hands of the whole thing with a shrug and a statute. 

To be clear, not every lawsuit is justified. Some events truly are freak occurrences. But when concrete buckles in two separate spots on the same interstate in the same afternoon, it’s not freakish — it’s systemic. 

What’s needed

What happened on I-287 this week should be a wake-up call to New Jersey lawmakers. Immunity laws written for a different century are now being used to shield agencies from responsibility for failures in a radically different climate. Infrastructure resilience isn’t optional anymore — it’s existential.

What happened on I-287 this week should be a wake-up call to New Jersey lawmakers.

We need proactive inspection regimes that anticipate extreme heat and cold; we need smart sensors embedded in roadways to detect expansion and warn of failure before it happens; we need emergency protocols that prioritize public safety — not just traffic flow.

And when those systems fail, we need a legal system that gives victims a real shot at accountability — not a preordained dead end.

To the drivers affected this week: consult counsel. Investigate whether NJDOT had prior notice of the risk. Examine the maintenance records. File public records requests. The law may not make it easy, but that doesn’t mean you’re powerless.

To the rest of us: keep asking questions. Because today it was I-287 in Montville and Riverdale. Tomorrow, it could be your – or your car – or your child in the backseat.

And to Trenton: If you’re serious about public safety, climate adaptation, and modernizing New Jersey’s infrastructure — then start by modernizing the legal framework that decides who pays when it all breaks down.

Michael J. Epstein, a Harvard Law School graduate, is a trial lawyer and managing partner of The Epstein Law Firm PA, a law firm based in New Jersey.