{"id":25865,"date":"2025-11-25T11:16:35","date_gmt":"2025-11-25T16:16:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/brick\/?p=25865"},"modified":"2025-11-25T11:16:35","modified_gmt":"2025-11-25T16:16:35","slug":"n-j-court-dismisses-suit-against-jenkinsons-for-off-season-drowning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/brick\/2025\/11\/n-j-court-dismisses-suit-against-jenkinsons-for-off-season-drowning\/","title":{"rendered":"N.J. Court Dismisses Suit Against Jenkinson’s for Off-Season Drowning"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Closed<\/a>

Closed and locked beaches in Point Pleasant Beach, N.J., Sept. 12, 2023. (Photo: Shorebeat)<\/p><\/div>\n

The family of a swimmer who drowned after entering unguarded ocean waters in late September at Jenkinson’s beach in Point Pleasant Beach had their lawsuit dismissed last week by a state appellate court, ending a battle that, at one point, briefly caused the company to close all of its public beaches<\/a> before being ordered to reopen them<\/a> by the state Department of Environmental Protection. A copy of the decision is embedded beneath this story.<\/p>\n

The family of Anthony J. Timpanaro, a 69-year-old Manchester Township man who died after being caught in a rip current Sept. 23, 2020, sued Jenkinson’s \u2013 which owns the majority of Point Pleasant Beach’s oceanfront \u2013 arguing that the company was negligent in its alleged “willful or malicious failure to warn the public against the latent dangerous condition that was the ocean” at the time of the drowning.<\/p>\n

A trial court ruled against Timpanaro’s family and granted summary judgment in favor of Jenkinson’s, but they appealed, leading to appellate panel to issue its decision Nov. 21, 2025. The appellate panel acknowledged the fact that a parking attendant at Jenkinson’s specifically told the family that swimming was not permitted when they pulled into a company-owned lot that day, and that signs were posted near beach entrances that stated “Beaches Closed, No Swimming.” The parking attendant told the family they could enjoy the beach, but not swim, which one of the judges, in a concurring decision, noted could be confusing given the “Beach Closed” sign. It did not rise to a level that would cause the company to be liable for the man’s death, however.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the court considered testimony from state DEP, whose representatives said that Jenkinson’s Coastal Areas Facilities Review Act permit requires the company to leave beaches open for public access year-round. An exception is allowed when there are significant storms, such as hurricanes, offshore that present a safety hazard that necessitates a full closure of the beach, but that argument would not have applied in the 2020 case despite claims by the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs made arguments that offshore storms \u2013 specifically, Hurricane Teddy, which was hundreds of miles at sea \u2013 created a greater risk to swimmers than that which would be experienced on a typical day. The weather, however, was “beautiful,” the court found, and “there were no hurricane watches or warnings declared by NOAA.” Further, “Point Pleasant premises were never identified as being part of a coastal flood warning area, nor had the Governor issued a state of emergency for storms or flooding.”<\/p>\n

The panel did rule that Jenkinson’s is not immune to lawsuits under the state’s Landowner’s Liability Act, which protects private property owners whose land is the subject to DEP permits that require public access that otherwise would not be granted for fear of litigation. This is due to the fact that Jenkinson’s specifically uses its property and its recreational features as a business. But while immunity may not apply, the plaintiffs did not prove that the company acted negligently.<\/p>\n

\"Closed<\/a>

Closed and locked beaches in Point Pleasant Beach, N.J., Sept. 12, 2023. (Photo: Shorebeat)<\/p><\/div>\n

“The record reflects that defendants had prominently displayed signs in both the parking area and on the beach, advising that swimming was prohibited and beaches were closed,” the decision stated. “The court acknowledged that these measures undertaken by defendants to warn the public about hidden dangers sufficiently fulfilled their duty of care.”<\/p>\n

The warnings, the court opined, “unmistakably convey to beachgoers that no lifeguards were on duty should they encounter difficulties in the water.”<\/p>\n

The opinion of the court was “published,” meaning it can be cited in the future as legal precedent statewide. The decision was written by Superior Court Judge Kay Walcott-Henderson.<\/p>\n

Read the Decision:<\/strong><\/p>\n