New Jersey Court Finds No Duty of Care Owed When Risk of Harm Is Not Forseeable

In this personal injury case, the plaintiff, Mildred Green, appealed from a trial court order granting summary judgment to the defendants, Arboleda Guapacha and Vidal. The trial court determined there were no genuinely disputed issues of material fact from which a reasonable jury could conclude the defendant negligently operated his vehicle at the time of the intersectional collision in which the plaintiff was injured. 

Green and Guapacha were operating motor vehicles on 1st Street in Newark, near the entrance to Route 280. It is undisputed that Guapacha’s vehicle was in the left lane of traffic and Green’s vehicle was in the middle lane of the roadway. Green was initially stopped at a red light controlling her lane of traffic, located to Guapacha’s right. The lane that Green was travelling in was designated by traffic markings on the roadway as a “straight only” lane. When the left-hand turn signal controlling only Guapacha’s lane of travel displayed green, he proceeded to make the left turn. Green disregarded the middle lane’s red light and lane markings and began negotiating a left-hand turn, thus resulting in a collision. 

Here, the threshold question was whether Guapacha owed a duty of care to Green. For a court to impose a duty of care, there must be a foreseeable risk of harm. The court discussed the fact that Green elected to disregard the red light and the middle lane markings and drive her vehicle into a lane of travel she should not have occupied. Although both drivers had a duty to make proper observations, Green’s presence on the roadway next to Guapacha’s lane of travel at the time of impact was not reasonably foreseeable. Thus, Guapacha owed no duty to Green. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}