Podias v. Mairs

926 A.2d. 859 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Mairs (D) was drinking beer at the home of a friend and eventually left with Swanson and Newell, all of them eighteen years of age. D was driving. Swanson was in the front passenger seat, and Newell was seated in the rear of the vehicle where he apparently fell asleep. It was raining, and the road was wet. D lost control of the car, struck a motorcycle driven by Antonios, and went over the guardrail. All three exited the vehicle and 'huddled' around the car. Swanson saw Antonios lying in the roadway and because he saw no movement and heard no sound, told D and Newell that he thought D had killed the cyclist. At that time, there were no other cars on the road or witnesses for that matter. All three had cell phones, but no one called for assistance. They made a lot of phone calls, but none were made for emergency assistance. After about five or ten minutes, they decided to get back in the car and leave the scene. A short distance later, D's car broke down. D pulled over and waited in the bushes for his girlfriend to arrive, while Swanson and Newell ran off into the woods, where Newell eventually lost sight of Swanson. A motor vehicle operated by Patricia Uribe ran over Antonios, who died as a result of injuries sustained in these accidents. D claimed that he was alone in the car. He also denied striking the motorcycle, seemingly unaware of any impact despite being told otherwise by Swanson. Blood was drawn more than three hours after the accident and D's blood alcohol level was .085. Months later D admitted that defendants were passengers in the car on the evening of the accident. P filed a complaint against several defendants, all of whom save Swanson and Newell, either settled or were found liable after jury trial. Swanson and Newell moved for summary judgment, which the judge granted, dismissing P's complaint with prejudice, finding defendants had no legal duty to volunteer emergency assistance to one whose injury they neither caused nor substantially assisted another in bringing about. P appealed.