Diaz v. Reynoso
| Decision Date | 01 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-1285-20 |
| Citation | 468 N.J.Super. 73,255 A.3d 1217 |
| Parties | Vladimir DIAZ, Plaintiff, v. Herbert J. REYNOSO and AWJ Inc., d/b/a El Tango Argentina Grill, Defendants, and Angel Dominguez, Defendant-Respondent, and The City of Englewood, New Jersey, a Municipal Corporation of the State of New Jersey, County of Bergen, its Officials, Employees and/or agents, Anthony Gallo, Individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Englewood, and Lothairs Porter, Individually and as a Police Office of the City of Englewood, Defendant-Appellants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
James F. Dronzek argued the cause for appellants (Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC, attorneys; James F. Dronzek, of counsel and on the brief; Ryan J. Gaffney, Secaucus, on the brief).
Peter E. Mueller argued the cause for respondent (Harwood Lloyd, LLC, attorneys; Jeanne O. Marino, Hackensack, of counsel and on the brief; Peter E. Mueller, on the brief).
Before Judges Sabatino, Gooden Brown, and DeAlmeida.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SABATINO, P.J.A.D.
This interlocutory appeal from a Rule 4:6-2(e) dismissal order raises novel issues of legal duty and tort liability in a drunk driving context.
The issues concern whether a volunteer who assures police officers at a roadside stop of an apparently inebriated driver that he will take the driver and his car safely to a residence—but thereafter relinquishes the car to the driver before reaching that destination—can be civilly liable as a joint tortfeasor if the driver then collides with and injures another motorist.
In the present case, police officers stopped a driver who was traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street. Perceiving the motorist was unfit to drive, the officers asked him if he could arrange for someone to pick him up. The motorist called a friend, who quickly arrived and assured the officers that he would drive the motorist and his car to another location. Relying on this assurance, the police issued a traffic ticket for a moving violation to the motorist and allowed the friend to drive him away. Minutes later, the friend returned the car to the motorist at a railroad crossing and separated from him. The motorist, who was intoxicated well over the legal limit, resumed driving and crashed his car into the plaintiff's vehicle. He later pled guilty to committing assault by auto while under the influence of alcohol.
The severely injured plaintiff sued the driver, a restaurant where the driver had been drinking that night, the police officers and their city employer, and the volunteer. The volunteer moved to dismiss the claims against him, arguing he owed no legal duty that could make him civilly liable to any extent for this accident.
After reviewing a video of the motor vehicle stop and a prosecutor's investigative report, the motion judge concluded the volunteer breached no legal duty to the injured plaintiff. The judge accordingly dismissed plaintiff's claims, as well as the police defendants' related cross-claims for contribution, against the volunteer. This appeal ensued.
Applying statutory public policies and allied common law principles, we reverse the trial court's dismissal order.
We hold that a volunteer who fails to discharge his commitment to the police in such a situation and who willingly allows a visibly intoxicated motorist to resume driving can bear a portion of the civil liability for an ensuing motor vehicle accident caused by that drunk driver. The presence of such a legal duty will hinge upon whether the volunteer is advised by the police, or objectively has reason to know from the surrounding circumstances, that his or her promise is an important obligation and that failing to carry it out could result in civil financial consequences.
In recognizing these legal duties that may have been assumed by the volunteer, we do not absolve any other parties whose negligence, if proven, contributed to the harm, including the drunk driver himself, the police officials who failed to field test or arrest him, and the restaurant that served him alcohol. Their own respective shares of fault would need to be determined and allocated, based upon customary rules of proximate causation and joint tortfeasor liability.
Because discovery had only just begun in this case and the factual record is not sufficiently developed to resolve these issues, the dismissal of the volunteer as a co-defendant was premature. We therefore remand for further proceedings in accordance with the principles stated in this opinion.
The record existing as of the time of the motion ruling1 reflects the following sequence of events.
At approximately 7:00 p.m. on September 22, 2018, defendants Herbert J. Reynoso and Angel Dominguez, accompanied by their friends Luis Gonzalez and Daniel Paredes, attended a rooftop party in Fort Lee. After leaving the party around 11:00 p.m., the four men went to El Tango Argentina Grill ("El Tango") in Englewood. They stayed at El Tango until approximately 1:45 a.m. on September 23. According to Reynoso's guilty plea colloquy, he consumed at least two cocktails, a shot of tequila, and two beers at El Tango without eating any food there.
When they left El Tango, the group divided. Reynoso left El Tango driving his own vehicle, an Audi sedan, with Gonzalez as a passenger. Meanwhile, Paredes left in his own vehicle, a handicap-equipped van, with Dominguez as a passenger.
Shortly thereafter, at about 1:53 a.m., Englewood Police Officer Anthony Gallo observed Reynoso's Audi make a turn going the wrong direction on Grand Avenue in Englewood, a one-way street. Gallo radioed for back-up and proceeded to stop Reynoso's vehicle.2
As Officer Gallo approached Reynoso's Audi, Reynoso reached outside of the car and placed what appears to be his car keys on the roof above the driver's side. Officer Gallo leaned against the vehicle on the passenger side and queried Reynoso about traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street.
Officer Gallo then proceeded to ask Reynoso and his passenger where they were coming from, and where they lived. Although the audio is not clear, it appears that at least one of the two men, most likely Gonzalez, told Gallo he was from Bergenfield.3 At this point, a second patrol vehicle arrived and stopped next to Reynoso's vehicle.
As the back-up patrol vehicle was positioned to control traffic, Officer Gallo asked Reynoso where he was headed. Reynoso's response is indiscernible. Following up, Gallo asked Reynoso how he planned to get home and whether he felt capable of driving. Reynoso responded that he was able to drive.
Reynoso then offered to call someone to come pick him up, to which Officer Gallo responded that would be preferable. Gallo confirmed with Reynoso that someone who was in better condition and coming from home was going to pick him and his car up. Meanwhile, Police Officer Lothairs Porter, the back-up patrolman, approached the Audi.
Reynoso then phoned a friend, asking if Dominguez could come pick him and Gonzalez up. Officer Gallo requested Gonzalez's identification, also asking how much he had to drink, and whether he could also call someone.
As Reynoso finished his call requesting to be picked up, Gallo told him that his friend would need take possession of the Audi or otherwise the police would need to take other unspecified "steps." Officer Porter stood by as the exchange occurred.
Gallo returned to his patrol vehicle as the group waited for Dominguez to arrive. Gallo asked Reynoso if his friend was in a better condition to drive, and Reynoso assured him he was. Reynoso further told Gallo would leave his car wherever the officer directed and that he would pick it up in the morning.
At this point, a van with Dominguez and Paredes appeared on the video screen, and Reynoso indicated that his friends had arrived.
Officer Gallo issued to Reynoso a traffic citation for driving the wrong direction on a one-way street. Neither he nor Officer Porter asked Reynoso to step out of the car, and they did not administer to Reynoso any field sobriety tests.
The exchange between Officer Gallo and Dominguez was short, as Dominguez had apparently been briefed off camera (or out of earshot) by Officer Porter. Gallo asked Dominguez if he was okay to drive and if Porter had explained to him what was going on. Dominguez responded that he was okay to drive, made some indiscernible comments about making a U-turn, and that he knew generally what was going on.
Dominguez told the officers he planned to take Reynoso to "Bergenfield." He then waited while Officer Gallo completed paperwork in his vehicle.4
At this point, Gonzalez got into the van with Paredes. Officer Porter retrieved the apparent keys from the top of the Audi and handed them to Dominguez. Officer Gallo told Dominguez the officers would help him make a U-turn, and that they should then go home to "Bergenfield" and drop off Reynoso.
The video ends as the Audi makes a U-turn and drives away. Paredes and Gonzalez followed the Audi in the van; it is unclear who was driving it.
According to the investigative report, Dominguez told police during a recorded interview5 that after leaving the scene of the traffic stop, he drove Reynoso to Bergenfield. When the Audi reached a railroad crossing near West Central Avenue in Bergenfield, he stopped to allow a train to pass. According to Dominguez, while they were stopped, "Reynoso began arguing with Dominguez and demanding he drive his [car]."
Eventually Dominguez relented. He got out of the Audi and switched places with Gonzalez, who had been in the van behind them with Paredes. Gonzalez got in the passenger seat of the Audi, with Reynoso back at the wheel.
Dominguez apparently did not see Reynoso again that night. He stated he did not know a crash had occurred...
To continue reading
Request your trial