$______ RECOVERY - MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE - REAR END COLLISION - WRONGFUL DEATH - DEFENDANT, WITH HISTORY OF DRUG ABUSE, GIVEN PERMISSION BY DEFENDANT PARENTS TO DRIVE VEHICLE UNDER THEIR CONTROL - DEFENDANT DRIVER REAR ENDS VEHICLE WITH 5 PEOPLE IN IT CAUSING DEATHS OF 2 PASSENGERS AND SERIOUS INJURY TO REMAINING 3 OCCUPANTS OF VEHICLE.

• Pages: 2-3

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS

$2,700,000 RECOVERY – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – REAR END COLLISION –

WRONGFUL DEATH – DEFENDANT, WITH HISTORY OF DRUG ABUSE, GIVEN

PERMISSION BY DEFENDANT PARENTS TO DRIVE VEHICLE UNDER THEIR CONTROL –

DEFENDANT DRIVER REAR ENDS VEHICLE WITH 5 PEOPLE IN IT CAUSING DEATHS OF

2 PASSENGERS AND SERIOUS INJURY TO REMAINING 3 OCCUPANTS OF VEHICLE.

Middlesex County, NJ

In this motor vehicle negligence case, the

plaintiffs asserted that the defendant driver struck

their vehicle from behind with such force that it

caused significant, permanent injury and/or death

to all occupants of the vehicle. The defendant

driver died, unrelated to the subject accident,

prior to filing of the suit. The plaintiffs proceeded

to bring suit against the estate of the deceased

defendant driver, negligent entrustment as to the

defendant parents, and vicarious liability as to the

owner of the vehicle. The defendants denied

liability for the collision, arguing the plaintiff

driver was negligent or comparatively negligent in

causation of the collision. As to negligent

entrustment, the defendant parents of the

defendant driver denied having any reason to

believe it was unsafe to allow their son to drive

on the day in question. The defendants argued

that their son showed no signs of impairment or

use of any substance and had not shown such in

the days prior to the subject accident.

On June 4, 2016, the first plaintiff was traveling near

the intersection of West Main Street and Stillwells Cor-

ner Road in Freehold. The defendant was traveling in

the same direction as the plaintiffs’ vehicle and struck

the rear of the vehicle causing all occupants of the

plaintiff’s vehicle either serious, permanent injury or

death. The plaintiff contended that the defendant

negligently failed to stop behind the plaintiff. The de-

fendant struck the plaintiff’s vehicle from the rear. The

plaintiff alleged that the force of the impact resulted

in permanent injuries.

2 of the occupants of the plaintiffs’ vehicle were killed

and the others were severely injured. As a result of the

collision, the defendant driver was issued summons

for driving under the influence of liquor or drugs, reck-

less driving, speeding and failure to observe a traffic

control device.

The parties settled all claims in their entirety for the to-

tal amount of $2.7 million dollars. The net proceeds

available for distribution were $1,880,824.54. All

claimants and beneficiaries agreed among them-

selves as to the allocation of certain monies to the

estates the 2 individuals who died in the accident

and to the allocation of the net settlement proceeds

among themselves, broken down as follows: plaintiff

M.Gu $76,500; plaintiff AG $76,500; plaintiff JS

$245,000; plaintiff M.Ga $245,000; plaintiff PG

$245,000; plaintiff HG-D $992,825; survivor benefits to

the estate of plaintiff DG $30,000; survivor benefits to

the estate of plaintiff M.Gu $30,000.

REFERENCE

Gallina-Deluca, et al. vs. Estate of Austin Janowski, et

al. Docket no. L-004503-18; Judge Christopher D.

Rafano, 02-19-20.

Attorneys for plaintiff: Carol L. Forte and Connor C.

Turpan of Blume, Forte, Fried, Zerres & Molinari, PC

in Chatham, NJ. Attorney for defendant: Mark

Bongiovanni of Leary, Bride, Mergner & Bongiovanni,

P.A. in Cedar Knolls, NJ.

COMMENTARY

During the course of discovery, after the depositions of the defendant

driver’s parents, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their com-

plaint to include a count of negligent entrustment against the defen-

dant’s parents and sought extensive access to the defendant driver’s

records around his drug treatment. The plaintiffs argued that on the

date in question, the defendant driver was operating a motor vehicle

owned by the defendant uncle of the driver, which was kept at the

home of the defendant driver and his parents.

The defendant driver died on about August 18, 2017. The plaintiffs

sought to amend their complaint to assert claims for negligent en-

trustment and other acts of negligence against the defendant parents

of the deceased defendant, the driver of the car. The plaintiffs as-

serted that, during discovery, they learned that the defendant driver

revealed to his parents that he was addicted to heroin in January

2016,overayearprior to the accident. Between that time and the date

of his accident, the defendant driver was treated at a variety of reha-

bilitation centers for his addiction, but also experienced relapses.

In February of 2016, the defendant driver had relapsed and was

again taking heroin, and was prescribed the drug Suboxone, a drug

used to treat addiction to narcotics, such as heroin. The defendant

mother testified that she and her husband administered the

Suboxone to their son, that the “medications were locked in a safe in

our house” and that their son had to go to a doctor to be drug tested.

The plaintiff mother testified that she was the only person in her

house who knew the code to the safe in which the Suboxone was kept.

BetweenFebruary2016 and June 4, 2016, he relapsed “at least twice”

tohis mother’s knowledge, during which time he was also admitted to

the hospital for a drug overdose. The defendant mother testified that

she had witnessed Austin under the influence of drugs on prior

occasions.

2

Volume 42, Issue 11, April, 2022

Reproduction in any form without the express permission of the publisher is strictly prohibited by law.

Subscribe Now