Driver admitted to using heroin after first responders could had difficulty with veins
TOMS RIVER, NJ – In a recent legal battle, Thomas A. Fredella and his ex-wife, Kelly A. Kearney, brought a negligence lawsuit against several New Jersey state departments and the Township of Toms River, stemming from a severe car accident on Route 37. The case highlights intricate legal and scientific inquiries into the effects of drug impairment on driving.
The accident occurred when Fredella, driving under the influence of heroin, collided with a stationary Department of Transportation (DOT) truck involved in road clearance. The crash resulted in serious injuries and subsequent multiple surgeries for Fredell. During the legal proceedings, the focus turned sharply on whether Fredella’s heroin use impaired his driving to a degree that contributed significantly to the accident.
According to a recent court document, “Plaintiff drove into the back of the DOT truck, resulting in severe injuries to his right leg. When emergency medical technicians (EMTs) arrived and had difficulty locating a vein to administer medication to plaintiff, he told them that he had used heroin earlier that day. The Township claimed plaintiff was contributorily negligent and a proximate cause of the accident because he was inattentive while driving and was under the influence of heroin.”
At trial, the State’s medical expert, Dr. Lawrence Guzzardi, testified that Fredella’s heroin consumption earlier on the day of the accident led to impaired vision due to pinpoint pupils, a common effect of opioid use. However, the application of this testimony in court faced scrutiny. Fredella’s defense challenged the admissibility of Dr. Guzzardi’s testimony, particularly criticizing the lack of a pre-trial Frye/Daubert hearing that would assess the reliability of the expert’s methodologies.
The lawsuit against the NJ DOT was reportedly settled.
“Prior to trial, plaintiff and Kearny reached a settlement with the DOT and the Department of the Treasury (the DOT settlement). A jury returned a verdict finding that all parties were responsible for the accident, allocating fault as follows: the plaintiff was sixty percent responsible, the Township was twenty percent responsible, and the DOT twenty percent responsible. Based upon this verdict, the plaintiff did not receive any award of damages,” according to the lawsuit.
The trial court ultimately denied the motion for a Frye/Daubert hearing and accepted Dr. Guzzardi’s testimony, leading to a jury verdict that found Fredella mostly at fault due to his drug use. The comparative negligence law of New Jersey, which bars recovery for plaintiffs found more than 50% responsible, meant Fredella received no damages.
Fredella appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by not holding a Frye/Daubert hearing and by incorrectly instructing the jury on the law regarding settling defendants. The appellate court has now remanded the case for a detailed analysis under the Daubert standard, which will further examine the scientific validity of the expert’s testimony.
This case underscores the complexities of integrating medical science into legal arguments and the critical role of expert testimony in determining the outcomes of negligence suits involving substance impairment. The ongoing proceedings will likely set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in New Jersey, particularly concerning the admissibility and impact of expert testimony on drug impairment in vehicular accidents.
The Crash
A motorist struck a deer while driving on Route 37 at approximately 7:00 p.m. on the day of plaintiff’s accident. After the accident, its carcass lay across the right lane, with some innards and organs strewn into the center lane of the roadway. Officer Justin Lammer responded to the scene within five minutes, at 7:10 p.m. Lammer did not recall any details about the accident or seeing the deer and left the scene at approximately 7:54 p.m. At 8:12 p.m., DOT received a call from dispatch to remove the deer carcass.
At trial, Lammer agreed that per department policy, he was required to move animal carcasses to the side of the road if he could safely do so. Lammer stated if an officer could not move a carcass or any other type of obstruction from the road, the officer had to wait on the scene until the carcass was removed.
At 8:41 p.m. three DOT workers arrived-two in a pick-up truck with flashing lights and one in a safety truck with flashing lights and an arrow board-to direct traffic. The record is unclear as to whether the arrow board was lit at the time of the accident. The DOT workers did not set up any additional safety precautions, such as cones or signs. The DOT trucks were initially parked on the shoulder lane of Route 37, but about a minute before the accident, they moved off the shoulder and parked in the right lane to begin the carcass removal process.
Plaintiff drove onto Route 37 from an exit ramp off the Garden State Parkway. He recalled seeing taillights driving about “two football fields” ahead of him. After merging onto Route 37, plaintiff moved to the center lane, then back to the right lane, when he struck the rear of the DOT safety truck. Plaintiff testified he did not see any vehicles ahead of him before he hit the truck and did not see any lit signs or flashing lights.
Plaintiff presented testimony from an accident reconstruction expert who testified that regardless of plaintiff’s lane changes or whether the arrow board was on, he did not have sufficient time to stop his vehicle and avoid the collision.
Plaintiff sustained a severe open fracture in his lower right leg and had multiple breaks in the bone. Between November 2016 and February 2018, he underwent more than a dozen surgeries due to complications arising from infections and bone alignment. Ultimately, due to reoccurring risk of infection, plaintiff planned to have his leg amputated based on his doctor’s recommendation.
Heroin Evidence
The plaintiff testified he told the EMTs he had used two bags of heroin the day of the accident, either late that morning or early that afternoon because they had difficulty finding a vein to inject the medication. According to the plaintiff, the amount of heroin was the equivalent of drinking three beers and affected him for no more than thirty to forty-five minutes. Neither the police reports nor the EMT records noted the plaintiff as being under the influence of any substance, but the EMT records noted that the plaintiff had “pinpoint” pupils, measuring at two millimeters.
There were no laboratory tests confirming the levels of heroin in the plaintiff’s system at any time relevant to this matter.
Source: https://casetext.com/case/fredella-v-twp-of-toms-river