Kevin M. Regan, Esq. - Personal Injury, Divorce & Family Law Attorney

Kevin M. Regan, Esq. - Personal Injury, Divorce & Family Law Attorney Accident lawyer Divorce lawyer www.kevinreganlaw.com The firm is headed by Kevin M. Regan, Esq. Call

02/13/2020

Is There a ‘Hidden’ Defendant in Your Catastrophic Auto Injury Case?
In catastrophic auto injury cases involving limited auto insurance coverage or a single-vehicle accident where there is no liability insurance, theories of liability against non-drivers—who we’ll call “hidden” defendants—are key to achieving a successful result.
A college student is partially paralyzed when he swerves to avoid a head-on collision with a vehicle that has entered his lane of travel and instead drives up the guy wire of a utility pole, spins off the wire, flips his vehicle onto its roof, and collides with the pole.
A 21-year-old automobile passenger suffers a horrific death when a collision forces her vehicle into a guardrail, which tears through the passenger compartment and cuts through her seatbelt, causing her to be ejected.
In a separate guardrail case, an 18-year-old driver loses his right leg when he swerves to avoid a head-on collision and goes onto the shoulder, which is approximately six inches lower than the highway. Being unable to swerve back onto the highway because of the drop, his car goes out of control into a guardrail, which penetrates his driver-side door.
A young mother and three of her children are struck and killed while attempting to cross a heavily traveled, multi-lane roadway in a crosswalk that had no traffic signal, no pavement markings and no signage to alert motorists of the presence of pedestrians.
A six-year-old boy sustains severe spinal cord injuries resulting in paralysis, traumatic brain injury, oxygen deprivation, multiple fractures and internal injuries when he is hit by a car while walking on a recreational trail that crosses a roadway. There was no signage, pavement markings or yellow flashing light to alert the driver of the pedestrian and bicycle crossing. Trees and overgrown foliage obstructed the driver’s view of the trail.
A motorist sustains severe and permanent injuries when a large, decayed tree limb suddenly falls from a tree along a state roadway onto his vehicle.
A driver on an interstate highway is killed by a tractor-trailer that slammed into the rear of his vehicle, causing a multi-vehicle accident, while he was stuck in a backlog of traffic due to a construction zone project. The project’s contractor did not maintain or follow an appropriate traffic control plan that would have given adequate warning to approaching motorists of the stopped traffic.
The victims of the above accidents, including the families who lost loved ones, were our clients. It was our privilege to represent them, and our duty to evaluate and pursue theories of liability beyond, and in addition to, the usual theories involving negligent operation of a host or striking vehicle. Stated another way: In catastrophic auto injury cases involving limited auto insurance coverage or a single-vehicle accident where there is no liability insurance, theories of liability against non-drivers—who we’ll call “hidden” defendants—are key to achieving a successful result.
Who Are the ‘Hidden’ Defendants?
When a motor vehicle accident results in serious injury or death, counsel should determine whether roadway conditions caused or contributed to the outcome. Those responsible for the design, construction, maintenance and repairs of the roadway and adjacent structures (such as guardrails and utility poles) may be “hidden” defendants. Possible theories of liability that counsel should investigate include:
• Negligent placement of utility poles and wires in the path of vehicles that are caused to leave the roadway.
• Defective guardrails, including guardrails that are defectively designed, improperly installed, improperly maintained or otherwise pose a hazard to the motoring public.
• Negligent roadway design, which includes inadequate traffic control signals and signage, poor lighting, improper speed limits, pavement edge drop-offs, failure to warn of dangerous conditions, and dangerous pedestrian crossings.
• Failure to fix dangerous roadway conditions and to implement safety improvements following repeated, fully preventable tragedies.
• Hazardous construction zones, including work zones that are not properly monitored by police, present dangerous road surfaces, lack adequate roadway markings or signage, or require motorists to suddenly and unexpectedly reduce their speed or come to a full stop.
• Failure to protect the motoring public from dangerous trees, which includes failure to conduct routine inspections and failure to remove and/or prune risky trees as necessary.
With the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reporting in its February 2015 “Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey” that 52,000 crashes from 2005 to 2007 were caused by environment-related reasons—including view obstructions, highway-related conditions, signs/signals and road design—it is imperative that auto injury counsel know what to do when a potential client contacts you about a case with liability issues that go beyond typical theories of driver negligence. Below we offer an action plan for recognizing, investigating and litigating “hidden” defendant cases.
Immediate Steps
When a potential client contacts you with a case that may involve “hidden” defendants, here are the immediate steps you must take:
Preserve Evidence. The first step is to act quickly to ensure that critical evidence does not vanish. To be clear: It is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to bring a claim if all vehicles involved in the accident or other evidence (such as a defective guardrail) are not available for inspection by experts.
Hire Experts. Upon securing the evidence, you must immediately assemble your investigative team to evaluate it. Depending upon the nature of your case, professionals to consider include:
• A private investigator/photographer;
• An accident reconstruction expert;
• A professional engineer, with traffic engineering experience;
• Construction contracting experts;
• Human factors experts.
Conduct a Forensic Investigation. There is a limited window of opportunity to document the accident site and to gather and assess physical evidence before it is lost forever. For instance, if a gouge in the roadway is not properly documented, and the roadway is later altered or the gouge fades, important evidence will be lost. Because memories fade, it is also important to interview all witnesses as soon as possible.
Provide Notice of Claim. If you believe there are potential claims against the state, a county or a municipality, you must provide notice of claim within 90 days of the date of the accident, pursuant to the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1, et seq.
Regulations and Standards
Whether a roadway (or a structure, such as a guardrail or utility pole) poses a hazardous condition may be governed by its conformity with the New Jersey Department of Transportation’s regulations and safety standards. You should obtain the applicable regulations and standards immediately. You may also wish to consider standards of private organizations, such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
Documents and Records
Documents and records that plaintiffs’ counsel should seek to obtain through Freedom of Information Act requests and discovery include:
• All project documents, including construction plans, progress notes, logs and photos;
• Maintenance records, including inspection reports and work orders;
• All government and private contracts.
Depositions
Depositions to consider include:
• Officials from the New Jersey Department of Transportation;
• State and private engineers;
• Architects;
• Job site superintendents;
• Corporate designees of private contractors.
Consider Crashworthiness
Crashworthiness is another type of claim counsel should consider in cases involving serious injuries or death of auto occupants. In short, crashworthiness cases, also referred to as auto defect claims, are cases in which the vehicle, because of its unsafe design or the absence of necessary safety features, fails to adequately protect the occupants from injury in foreseeable crashes. Because crashworthiness claims often cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare, only catastrophic injury claims can support the necessary level of financial investment, and only a limited number of law firms handle these types of cases. It generally will be necessary to refer the matter to a law firm experienced in crashworthiness litigation for an evaluation.
If you believe a client’s catastrophic injury may support a crashworthiness claim, again you must act immediately, within days of the accident, to preserve the vehicles involved in the crash and to contact a crashworthiness attorney who can arrange for the necessary investigation of the vehicle’s crashworthiness and a forensic investigation of the accident site.
Settlements That Prevent Tragedies
A common motivation among clients who are victims of catastrophic auto injuries and losses is their desire to spare other families from similar tragedies. We submit that plaintiffs’ counsel can play an important role in achieving that objective.
When litigating a “hidden” defendant case, be mindful that you can achieve a fair result for your client while also negotiating settlement terms that promote public safety. Many of our firm’s settlements have included provisions requiring:
• Inspection, removal and replacement of dangerous guardrails;
• Improved signage and markings, and the addition of traffic control signals at pedestrian crossings;
• Safety improvements where “budgetary constraints” and the need for “additional studies” had repeatedly been cited as excuses for inaction that perpetuated serious injuries and deaths over many years;
• Tree inspections, removals and closures of areas with compromised trees.
Indeed, accountability in litigation can be a powerful impetus for change.
Article published in the New Jersey Law Journal By John M. Dodig and Jason A. Daria | February 12, 2020 at 12:00 PM

12/31/2019

$1.75M in Bergen Auto Case

An Bergen County woman will receive a $1.75 million settlement obtained through mediation before trial after bringing a lawsuit against a young driver who allegedly struck and seriously injured her in a Mahwah car collision, according to the injured woman’s attorney.
Trial had been set for Feb. 25 in Bergen County Superior Court. The mediation was handled by retired Essex County Superior Court Judge Eugene Codey.

As a result of the car accident Plaintiff suffered neck and shoulder injuries as well as post-concussive syndrome from hitting her head on her vehicle window. She eventually had neck surgery that included fusion with cages and 12 screws. In addition, she received cognitive therapy and biofeedback.

Original Article First Posted in the New Jersey Law Journal March 8, 2019

10/28/2019

COMMERCIAL TRUCK STRIKES SANTIATION WORKER CASE RESULTS IN $4.35 MILLION SETTLEMENT

A man whose left leg was amputated after he was struck by a truck agreed to a $4.35 million settlement in his county suit.

Lamar Bland, now 28, was working as a sanitation worker for the Borough of Point Pleasant on Oct. 2, 2018, when he was struck by a vehicle owned by Unique Scaffolding Systems of Kenilworth and operated by Juan Jorge, a company employee. The crash left Bland pinned between the Unique Scaffolding systems vehicle and the garbage truck. He sustained a fracture of the left tibia and fibula, and a displaced left femoral fracture. After multiple operations in an effort to save the leg, Bland ultimately had his leg amputated below the knee, according to his county truck accident lawyer.

The settlement was reached after a mediation. The settlement includes $1 million from Unique Scaffolding Systems’ primary policy with Nationwide, and $3.35 million from an excess carrier, Gotham Insurance, which had $5 million in coverage.

Original Article First Posted in the New Jersey Law Journal July 12, 2019

09/27/2019

Postal Service Pays $4.9 Million to Settle Case Over Child Killed by Truck

A suit in U.S. District Court over an accident in which a U.S. Postal Service vehicle killed a two-year-old ended in a settlement for $4.9 million that was paid on Jan. 15.

Ana Chacon crossed Rahway Avenue in Elizabeth in a crosswalk on July 20, 2015, when she was struck by a Postal Service vehicle driven by Joseph Collins. Collins was turning right onto Rahway Avenue from Chilton Street when he struck Chacon and her grandchildren. He apparently did not look to the right before making the turn, said the family’s truck accident lawyer.

In addition, there was evidence that Collins was using a mobile phone just before the crash.

At the time of that the truck struck her, Chacon was carrying her 2-year-old granddaughter, Sofia Flores, in her left arm, and using her right hand to hold the hand of her four-year-old grandson, Jacob.

Chacon was severely injured as a result of being struck. She managed to push Jacob out of the way, but Sofia was thrown to the pavement and killed.

A suit sought recovery for loss of companionship of Sofia, and medical and burial expenses; psychological trauma for Jacob from viewing the death of his sister, and the injury of his grandmother; and the injuries suffered by Chacon, including lower extremity fractures and mild traumatic brain injury.
Following mediation, the parties agreed to settle for $4.9 million. Chacon will receive $3 million; the estate of Sofia Flores will receive $1.3 million; and Jacob Flores will receive $600,000.

Original Article First Posted in the New Jersey Law Journal January 28, 2019

09/23/2019

APPEAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE

B.S. v. A.S., N.J. Super. App. Div. (Rothstadt, J.) (23 pp.) Plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment of divorce entered following trial. The parties met in Canada and had one child; defendant already had another child from a previous relationship. The parties later moved to New Jersey and were married. The parties ultimately separated when plaintiff left the marital residence, where defendant and the two children remained. During the divorce trial, the trial court took evidence that plaintiff was a municipal employee earning $70,000 per year, while defendant was a retail store manager earning $28,000 per year. Plaintiff had also filed a domestic violence action and obtained a temporary restraining order against defendant. With respect to custody and parenting time, plaintiff alleged that defendant was in a romantic relationship with someone whom plaintiff alleged was spending overnights in the marital home in the presence of children in contravention of the trial court's orders. The trial court ruled that there was no evidence of cohabitation. The trial court awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody, with defendant designated the parent of primary residence, with the parties' child spending weekends with plaintiff and the remainder of time with defendant. The trial court further ordered plaintiff to pay off defendant's car note but directed the parties to be responsible for their own personal debt. Finally, the trial court awarded defendant limited durational alimony and child support. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the trial court's custody and parenting time determinations and awards of alimony, child support, and equitable distribution. Plaintiff argued that the trial court abused its discretion and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The court rejected plaintiff's arguments and affirmed the judgment of divorce, finding no basis to disturb the trial court's factual findings underpinning the custody and parenting time determination.

Original Article published in the NJSBA Daily Briefing 9/23/19

09/13/2019

FAMILY LAW | ALIMONY
Landau v. Landau, N.J. Super. App. Div. (Accurso, J.) (18 pp.) Defendant appealed from the order of the trial court granting plaintiff discovery for his post-judgment of divorce motion to suspend or terminate alimony based on cohabitation. The parties were divorced pursuant to a judgment that incorporated the parties' marital settlement agreement. The MSA provided defendant with limited duration term alimony, which would terminate in March 2022, upon defendant's remarriage, or upon the death of either party. The MSA also permitted plaintiff to seek review and modification of alimony in the event of defendant's cohabitation as defined by then-current statutory and case law. Plaintiff filed a motion to terminate, suspend, or modify defendant's alimony based on the allegation that defendant was cohabitating with a man she had been exclusively seeing for over a year. Plaintiff alleged that the two had traveled together, attended social activities as a couple, engaged in activities with the parties' children, and publicly acknowledged their relationship. Defendant opposed the motion, arguing that having a boyfriend was not tantamount to cohabitation, asserting that she and her boyfriend paid their own way when traveling together and only occasionally slept over at each other's homes. The trial court deferred a ruling on whether plaintiff had made a prima facie case for his motion but concluded that he had made a sufficient showing to grant him discovery to make a prima facie case. On appeal, the court reversed the trial court's order, concluding that amendments to the alimony statute did not change the paradigm by which courts would analyze motions to terminate alimony based on cohabitation. The court acknowledged the difficulties in proving cohabitation but held that it did not warrant invasion of a party's privacy through discovery. Instead, the court held that a moving party was first required to make a prima facie case before being entitled to discovery. (Approved for Publication)

Original Article First Posted in the NJSBA Daily Briefing September 9, 2019

09/12/2019

$900K in Middlesex County Auto Accident Case

Plaintiff Thomas Fino received the proceeds of a $900,000 settlement for injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Old Bridge.
The Middlesex County case was settled just prior to a trial date.

Fino, of Morganville, was stopped in traffic while driving a 2015 black Chevrolet Silverado east on Spring Valley Road in Old Bridge, when he was rear-ended by a black 2015 Jeep Wrangler operated by Ryan Plante of Morganville on Oct. 14, 2016, according to the police report. Plante was issued a summons for careless driving.

At the time of the accident, Fino was receiving regular chiropractic treatment for cervical and lumbar complaints, according to his car accident attorney. Despite the treatments, Fino was able to participate in all of his normal daily activities, his lawyer said. However, as a result of the accident, Fino experienced pain and weakness up and down his right arm that eventually necessitated anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Nearly nine months later, on Christmas Eve 2017, Fino attempted to lift a 60-pound box and felt immediate pain in his neck and left shoulder and subsequently underwent a posterior decompression on May 7, 2018.

Fino continues to suffer pain from the car accident.

Original Article First Posted in the New Jersey Law Journal May 31, 2019

09/12/2019

MARITAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – LIFE INSURANCE – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

Estate of Terri N. Fasano ex rel Robert Fasano v. Fasano, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (11 pp.) Defendant and plaintiff dissolved their marriage by way of a judgment of divorce and entered into a property settlement agreement. While the divorce proceedings were pending, the decedent transitioned from male to female and became known as Terri Fasano instead of Robert Fasano. Terri remarried to Diann Castiaux who became the executrix of Terri's estate and the beneficiary of a life insurance policy. Defendant filed an ex parte application and order to show cause to temporarily restrain plaintiff's estate from: alienating, hypothecating, or in any way limiting in value any of the assets of the decedent's estate; imposing a constructive trust over the assets of the estate based on the decedent's failure to maintain a life insurance policy naming defendant as the beneficiary; and, preserving any claims that may be transferred for adjudication. Ultimately the trial judge directed the executrix to pay defendant a sum of money from the proceeds of the life insurance policy.

Defendant appealed and argued that the trial judge misconstrued the PSA and misapplied the holding and reasoning in Konczyk v. Konczyk, when it denied her application to enforce the provision that required the decedent to maintain a life insurance policy that named her as the sole beneficiary. In the present action defendant sought to protect her rights to receive 50% of the decedent's pension benefits under the QDRO the parties had executed. The court found that both the parties and the trial judge erroneously characterized defendant's claim as based on her right to receive alimony. The court reasoned that the trial courts threshold mischaracterization of the legal issue involved misdirected the trial court's analysis and ultimately led to a legally untenable outcome.

The court was compelled to reverse the trial court's order and remand the matter for the trial court to determine what affect Terri's death had on defendant's right to receive her 50% distribution of the pension benefits as provided in the QDRO. If defendant was receiving her share of the pension benefits consistent with the QDRO, she would not be entitled to receive any part of the proceeds of Terri's life insurance policy that named Castiaux as the beneficiary. If Terri's death negatively affected defendant's pension benefits under the QDRO, the trial court must make specific findings describing with particularity the nature and extent of any reduction in benefits.

Original Article First Posted in the NJSBA Daily Briefing 9/10 2019

Address

Morristown, NJ

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Kevin M. Regan, Esq. - Personal Injury, Divorce & Family Law Attorney posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Share