Mangual v. Berezinsky
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
53 A.3d 664 (2012)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Felix and Judith Mangual (plaintiffs) were near their overheated car on a highway when Lazar Berezinsky (defendant) crossed the median and hit them. At the time, Berezinsky was driving a patient for Essex Surgery Center, LLC (Essex) (defendant). It was a clear, dry day with minimal traffic. Berezinsky claimed to have been following all traffic laws and speculated that hitting a hole might have caused the accident, but he had no proof. Both Manguals were seriously injured. The Manguals sued Essex and Berezinsky. Evidence showed Berezinsky owned and maintained his vehicle and also worked for another limousine company. Essex, like other surgical centers, occasionally required patient-transportation services, hiring drivers like Berezinsky and allowing them to choose their routes. Essex paid Berezinsky by the hour and might have contributed money for his gas. Essex gave Berezinsky a check for each day he worked. For tax purposes, both Essex and Berezinsky treated Berezinsky as an independent contractor. The trial court entered partial summary judgment for the Manguals, finding that the undisputed facts established that (1) Berezinsky was Essex’s employee, making Essex vicariously liable for Berezinsky’s actions, and (2) the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur established that Berezinsky must have acted negligently and caused the accident. Essex appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Accurso, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
