Gfeller Laurie Attorneys Secure Rare Win on Summary Judgment Using Surveillance Footage.

News

Gfeller Laurie LLP New Jersey office Partner Chimdi Tuffs and Associate Madison Calkins secured a rare victory on summary judgment in New Jersey Superior Court, Hudson County, in a case arising out of an e-bicycle versus motor vehicle accident. The victory is notable not only because summary judgment is rarely granted in such cases, but also because of Attorneys Tuffs’ and Calkins’ effective use of video surveillance footage to eliminate any questions of fact regarding liability. The decision creates favorable precedent for the use of video footage in summary judgment proceedings to resolve issues of fact that previously might have been considered questions for a jury.

Plaintiff alleged that the insured, who was operating a company vehicle in the course of her employment, caused the accident when making a right turn, striking Plaintiff’s e-bicycle, and causing him to fall off the e-bicycle, resulting in permanent injuries.

However, crucial video evidence showed that in fact, at the time of the collision, Plaintiff was riding in the roadway’s shoulder in a lane not meant for travel, wearing headphones, attempting to pass the insured on the right, while the insured was making a legal right hand turn. The video further showed that the impact was the result of Plaintiff running into the insured, rather than the insured colliding with the Plaintiff. This video formed the basis for the Court’s decision to grant the insured’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s counsel stalled providing complete written discovery and his evasive tactics caused the Court to end the discovery period before any witness depositions had occurred, resulting in our team filing an interlocutory appeal. Leave to appeal was granted and while a decision was pending, Attorneys Tuffs and Calkins moved for summary judgment at the trial court level, arguing that the video evidence established that the insured owed no duty to anticipate Plaintiff’s actions in operating his e-bicycle both in violation of the vehicle code, and outside of the insured’s view and that therefore, Plaintiff also could not prove the insured’s actions were the cause of his injuries. Attorneys Tuffs and Calkins also successfully argued that because Plaintiff could not make a prima facie case of the insured driver’s negligence, Plaintiff also consequently could not prove negligence against the insured’s employer under a vicarious liability theory. After oral argument, the trial judge ruled in favor of the insureds granting the motion for summary judgment in its entirety with prejudice.