We recently obtained summary judgment in New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County, in a motor vehicle negligence action. In the Complaint, plaintiff alleged the defendant driver was negligent and careless in the ownership, operation, maintenance, and control of their vehicle causing severe and permanent injuries. Further, plaintiff alleged, the operator’s negligence was imputed to the owner of the motor vehicle.
In order to hold a party liable on a theory of negligence the plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) actual and proximate causation, and (4) damages. In the context of this case, the law imposes upon the driver of an automobile the duty of exercising such care as is reasonable under all the circumstances confronting him/her at the particular time. Moreover, an owner of a motor vehicle cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligence an operator of that motor vehicle unless it is determined that: (1) the operator of the vehicle was acting as the owner’s agent, servant, or employee; (2) the owner was present in the motor vehicle and maintained some control over its operation; (3) the owner entrusted its operation to an incompetent or unfit person; or (4) the owner and driver were engaged in a joint enterprise or partnership activity.
In this matter, plaintiff sustained injuries after being rear ended in a three (3) car motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff was stopped at a traffic light and the defendant operator was stopped directly behind the plaintiff. As the plaintiff and operator were stopped, the co-defendant struck the operator, which caused the operator to strike the plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result, plaintiff sustained multiple disc bulges, muscle spasms, hypertension/hyperflexion to the cervical and lumbar spine, and radiculopathy of the cervical and lumbar spine; these injuries were alleged to be permanent.
We argued the operator did not breach any duty owed as there is no evidence the operator operated the vehicle in a negligent manner that would have fallen below the duty owed to the plaintiff. Even if there was such a breach, the plaintiff did not and could not forward any evidence the negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The operator was stopped behind the plaintiff at a traffic light; the operator did not make contact with the plaintiff’s vehicle prior to the co-defendant’s impact. As a result, the sole cause and proximate cause of the accident, was the force of the impact from the co-defendant’s vehicle. Lastly, we argued if any negligence was found upon the operator, it could not be imputed to the owner. The owner did not operate the vehicle, he did not entrust the vehicle to a person incompetent or unfit, he engaged in a joint enterprise activity, nor was the operator operating the vehicle on the behest of the owner as an agent, employee, or servant.
Subsequent to the filing of the motion, we appeared before the Court for oral arguments. Ultimately, the Court granted the motion for summary judgment in full against both the owner and operator.