$785K Settlement for Valet Attendant Injured Crossing Street After Off-site Parking Assignment
July 3, 2025
Dennis Shlionsky, counsel with Einhorn, Barbarito, Frost, Botwinick, Nunn & Musmanno’s Personal Injury Department, secured $785,000 in a complex premises liability case stemming from a pedestrian-vehicle collision at a private gala in Teaneck, New Jersey.
Plaintiff, a valet attendant, was struck by a vehicle after parking a vehicle off-site, leading to a multi-defendant premises liability case against the driver, venue, and its vendors.
The incident occurred on March 5, 2022, when he was directed to park overflow vehicles along a residential street across a multi-lane roadway from the event. While returning to the main entrance, he was struck by a vehicle attempting to pass another car. Witnesses reported that he, wearing dark clothing, ran into the road from a wooded area moments before impact. He was thrown nearly 100 feet and lost consciousness at the scene.
He sustained a traumatic brain injury and multiple fractures to the clavicle, scapula, fibula, occipital bone, and femur, requiring closed reduction surgery. The suit, filed in Bergen County, named multiple defendants, including the driver, catering companies, venue, and its affiliates. The plaintiff alleged that the venue and event organizers failed to create a safe pedestrian or traffic plan, despite requiring off-site valet parking.
The defense disputed liability, asserting comparative negligence, no control over the area where the plaintiff was injured, and the availability of a nearby crosswalk that he allegedly bypassed.
The matter resolved globally prior to trial for $785,000. The recovery resolved a workers’ compensation lien and accounted solely for pain and suffering.
Though liability for off-premises injuries is rare, this case followed Warrington v. Bird, 204 N.J. Super. 611 (App. Div. 1985), where the Appellate Division held that a business’ duty may arise when it directs persons to cross a public roadway as part of access to the venue.
Shlionsky said that the case reflects a broader safety issue surrounding large-scale events. “When you direct workers into traffic and fail to give them a plan, or even a vest, you can’t be surprised when disaster follows. This was entirely avoidable,” he said. “We are grateful to have fought for a young man who was put in harm’s way just trying to do his job.”