Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Essinger v. DiStefano

May 12, 2009

KELLEY A. ESSINGER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AND STEVEN C. ESSINGER AND ANNE ESSINGER, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JOSEPH A. DISTEFANO, SAVERIO DISTEFANO, AND ANGELA A. SARKADY, DEFENDANTS, AND RALPH NAPOLI AND DOMINIC R. NAPOLI, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, L-2133-06.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued April 27, 2009

Before Judges Reisner and Sapp-Peterson.

In this automobile accident case, plaintiff Kelley A. Essinger appeals from a June 8, 2007 order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Ralph and Dominic Napoli, the driver and owner, respectively, of a vehicle involved in the accident. We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in Judge O'Brien's written opinion accompanying the June 8 order.

I.

There is no dispute that the accident, which occurred on March 17, 2006, was caused when defendant Joseph A. DiStefano fell asleep at the wheel of his vehicle while driving in the northbound lane of Route 9. His vehicle crossed from the northbound lane of Route 9 into the southbound lane. Proceeding against the flow of traffic in the southbound lane, he first sideswiped a car driven by Angela Sarkady and then hit Essinger's car head-on. There appears no dispute that Ralph Napoli, who was following Essinger's car, swerved his vehicle onto the right-hand shoulder of Route 9 to try to avoid hitting or being hit by the Essinger vehicle. However, he was unsuccessful in avoiding a collision.

There is no dispute that the collision between the Essinger and Napoli vehicles occurred on the shoulder, after Napoli swerved off the roadway. According to Napoli's interrogatory answers, the head-on crash caused Essinger's car to bounce back and hit his vehicle. The certification of another witness attested that Napoli's car struck the Essinger vehicle. However, there was no evidence as to how fast the Napoli vehicle was traveling just prior to the accident, nor how closely his vehicle was following the Essinger car. While the police report indicated that Napoli's vehicle left seventy-five feet of skid marks swerving off the roadway, plaintiff did not provide, or offer to provide, an expert report explaining what, if any, significance the skid marks had with respect to Napoli's exercise of due care. Nor did plaintiff provide any other evidence concerning what Napoli might have done to avoid this accident.

In a written opinion, the motion judge reasoned that "[n]egligence must be proved and will never be presumed, nor will the mere proof of the occurrence of an accident raise a presumption of negligence," citing Bratka v. Castles Ice Cream Co., 40 N.J. Super. 576, 583 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 22 N.J. 226 (1956). He concluded that the undisputed evidence showed that DiStefano's conduct was the proximate cause of the accident and that there was no evidence that Napoli was negligent or caused the accident.

The judge acknowledged a motorist's duty to "maintain a reasonably safe distance behind the car ahead," citing Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2, 10 (1969). Moreover he considered that:

Where a motorist takes evasive action to avoid an accident, which would have supported a Dolson charge had it occurred, and in doing so rear-ends another vehicle, its driver has breached the duty to maintain a reasonably safe distance behind the [car] ahead. Paiva v. Pfeiffer, 229 N.J. Super. 276 (App. Div. 1988).

However, in this case, there was no evidence that Napoli had violated Dolson by following too closely. Further, the judge concluded that:

Unlike cases where a defendant driver is faced with an everyday traffic problem for which he should have been prepared, in this case, no reasonable juror could conclude[] that Defendant Napoli should have been prepared for Plaintiff to fall asleep at the wheel, veer into the oncoming lane of traffic, collide head-on with the vehicle directly in front of Defendant Ralph Napoli's vehicle, and propel that vehicle into a second collision on the shoulder of the road. Such an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.