## Facts

- Felix and Judith Mangual pulled their car onto the shoulder of Route 280 due to overheating and exited the vehicle.
- Lazar Berezinsky’s vehicle left the roadway and struck the Manguals and/or their stopped car, causing severe injuries.
- Berezinsky was transporting a surgical patient home from an ambulatory surgery facility at the time of the crash.
- Essex Surgery Center, LLC arranged transportation for patients using a pool of drivers, including Berezinsky, through a dispatcher employed by Essex.
- Essex paid Berezinsky directly; Berezinsky used and maintained his own vehicle and also drove for other limousine-related entities.
- Berezinsky could not provide a supported non-negligent explanation for why his vehicle departed the roadway; he offered only speculation (e.g., a possible road defect) without proof.

## Issues

1. Whether partial summary judgment on Berezinsky’s negligence/liability was proper based on an unexplained departure from the roadway that resulted in the collision.
2. Whether partial summary judgment was proper in ruling, as a matter of law, that Berezinsky was Essex’s agent/employee so that Essex was vicariously liable.

## Decision

- Affirmed partial summary judgment on liability against Berezinsky.
- Reversed partial summary judgment that Berezinsky was Essex’s agent/employee as a matter of law.
- Remanded for jury determination of the agency/independent-contractor question and resulting vicarious liability.

## Legal Principles

- An unexplained departure of a vehicle from the roadway, with no credible non-negligent explanation, permits an inference of negligence sufficient to support summary judgment on liability in appropriate circumstances.
- Vicarious liability based on agency requires evaluation of the right of control and related agency factors; payment arrangements and dispatching may support agency, while vehicle ownership, other work, and tax treatment may support independent-contractor status.
- When evidence on agency is mixed and material facts about control and the relationship are disputed, the question is for the jury and is not appropriately resolved on summary judgment.
- On summary judgment, courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and deny judgment where a genuine issue of material fact exists.

## Conclusion

The court held Berezinsky liable as a matter of law because his car’s unexplained departure from the roadway supported an inference of negligence, but it required a jury to decide whether Essex controlled Berezinsky’s work enough to make him Essex’s agent rather than an independent contractor for purposes of vicarious liability.


Mangual v. Berezinsky, 53 A.3d 664 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2012)