Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Wrongful Death Suit Against Hospital and Co-Employee in Fatal Parking Lot Accident

A wrongful death and survivorship action arising from a fatal accident in a hospital employee parking lot was dismissed after the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld a trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the defendants. The case involved a hospital employee who struck and killed a co-worker with her car while both were reporting to work. The court found that the claims were barred under the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act, determining that neither the hospital’s actions nor the driver’s conduct met the threshold for the Act’s “intentional wrong” exception.

Faisal Jameel (the plaintiff), administrator for the Estate of Aasia Jameel (the decedent), appealed from an order granting summary judgment dismissal to the defendants, Bayshore Community Medical Center (HMH) and Jennifer Dember. 

This negligence action against the defendants under the wrongful death and survivorship statues stemmed from an accident in the HMH’s employee parking lot when Dember struck the decedent with her car as the decedent was walking to work at the hospital, resulting in her death. Dember testified that she was driving to a designated portion of the back parking lot where HMH’s employees were instructed to park. There was surveillance video of the incident. Dember, as well as another witness, testified at deposition as to the lack of crosswalks, stop signs, etc. It was noted that in addition to the civil suit, a workers’ compensation claim was also filed. HMH noted it was paying dependency benefits to the decedent’s spouse.

The plaintiff’s engineering expert, Dr. Wayne Nolte, performed an engineering evaluation of the parking lot. He noted differences in pedestrian safety measures in the patient/visitor lot versus the employee parking area. He opined that the lack of safety devices was “a significant contributing factor” in causing this incident. The defendant’s expert, Dr. Timothy Noordewier, found the lot did meet the standards of care for a parking lot of its size and function and that the incident could not be reasonably attributed to the design or condition of the lot but wholly to Dember’s conduct. HMH’s director of operations also testified that she never received any complaints about the lot.

Taking into account the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act’s (the Act) “intentional wrong” exception, the trial court granted summary judgment dismissal to HMH based on the Act and lack of evidence of any intentional acts. The court also granted summary judgment dismissal to Dember under the Act’s co-employee immunity provision, noting that both Dember and the decedent were acting in the course of employment when the accident occurred. The plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division reviewed the Act and relevant case law regarding intentional acts. In applying the principles, the Appellate Division concluded HMH’s decision to direct Dember and the decedent to use a lot with less safety protections did not constitute an intentional wrong. As such, the plaintiff failed to establish the conduct prong. The Appellate Division added that even if the plaintiff met the conduct prong, i.e. HMH knew to a substantial certainty of an injury or death, the plaintiff still failed to meet the context prong, or that the condition of the parking lot was plainly beyond anything the legislature intended the Act to immunize. The Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the trial court erred in dismissing its claim against HMH as well as for punitive damages.

With regard to Dember, the Appellate Division found the car accident arose in the course of employment, noting the trial court’s dismissal under the Act’s co-employee bar was appropriate. 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 6, June 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}