A recent appellate decision has affirmed the dismissal of a pedestrian’s personal injury lawsuit after the court found that an enforceable oral settlement agreement had been made at the scene of the accident. The case highlights legal questions about settlements reached immediately following accidents and their enforceability under New Jersey law.
The complaint was filed by Ravon Hinton in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, on May 13, 2024, against defendants Keyla J. Rivas Acosta (the driver), Kenia B. Acosta Feliz (the vehicle owner), Uber Technologies, Inc., and Raiser, LLC. Hinton alleged that he sustained serious injuries as a result of being struck by a vehicle while crossing an intersection in Paterson on September 17, 2023.
According to court documents, Hinton claimed traumatic brain, cervical and lumbosacral spine, and knee injuries resulted from the incident. However, defendants denied liability and raised several affirmative defenses including accord and satisfaction, release, comparative negligence, and specifically cited an oral settlement agreement allegedly reached between Hinton and Rivas Acosta shortly after the accident.
The events unfolded on a dark and rainy night when Hinton was reportedly wearing black clothing. Immediately following the collision but before police arrived, defendant Rivas Acosta stated that Hinton offered not to report the accident or pursue legal action in exchange for $500 cash. Despite this offer from Hinton, Rivas Acosta contacted law enforcement. Officer Cesar Nunez responded to the scene where interactions between parties were recorded on his body worn camera (BWC).
Footage from Officer Nunez’s camera showed Hinton repeatedly refusing medical attention and expressing his willingness to accept $500 from Rivas Acosta to resolve any claims arising from the incident. During negotiations captured on video—later submitted as evidence—Hinton agreed to settle for $400 instead of $500 after further discussion with Rivas Acosta:
“DEFENDANT: Let me ask you a question, do you make an agreement that after I give you the money, it’s all over with?”
“PLAINTIFF: It’s over with! It’s over with. Look, I’m on camera, it’s over. I just want my [$]500 and just go right now just go.”
“DEFENDANT: Why won’t you just take the [$]400? Please, I’m begging you to just take the [$]400.”
“PLAINTIFF: Aight, come on let’s do it let’s do it let’s come on.”
“OFFICER NUNEZ: So is it [$]400?”
“PLAINTIFF: Yea yea it’s over come on.”
After arranging to withdraw cash from an ATM—with Hinton accompanying her—Rivas Acosta handed him $400 as agreed while still under police observation.
Despite this exchange, Hinton later filed suit seeking damages for his alleged injuries. Defendants moved to enforce what they described as an oral settlement agreement made at the scene; their motion included certifications from officers and witnesses as well as BWC footage supporting their account.
Hinton opposed enforcement of this agreement by arguing there was no valid contract due to lack of acceptance or meeting of minds and questioned his own capacity at that time due to possible diminished mental state following trauma. He also challenged whether all relevant conversations were captured by police video and cited statutory requirements under N.J.S.A. 17:29B-15 regarding settlements within thirty days of accidents.
Following oral argument before Judge Thomas J. LaConte—and relying heavily on BWC footage—the trial court found that Hinton had been lucid during negotiations and controlled discussions about settlement throughout his interaction with Rivas Acosta and Officer Nunez. The judge determined there was clear evidence of offer, acceptance, consideration without fraud or coercion present; thus enforcing the oral settlement agreement between parties and dismissing Hinton’s complaint with prejudice.
On appeal before Judges Walcott-Henderson and Bergman in April 2026 (Docket No. A-2923-24), Hinton reiterated arguments regarding lack of mutual assent or capacity but provided no supporting citations or medical evidence beyond challenging interpretation of video footage already reviewed by both trial and appellate courts.
The appellate panel concluded that Officer Nunez’s body worn camera footage “clearly confirms” findings made by Judge LaConte—that both parties voluntarily entered into a binding settlement agreement initiated by plaintiff himself who “repeatedly proffered” offers during their encounter.
Addressing statutory arguments raised under N.J.S.A 17:29B-15—which restricts insurance releases signed within thirty days post-accident unless certain disclosures are met—the court interpreted legislative intent as applying only to agreements involving insurance companies rather than private party settlements such as occurred here: “the statute is inapplicable as plaintiff did not sign a release or waiver with an insurance company.” As such no violation occurred under this provision.
Ultimately affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice based on enforceability of oral contract established at accident scene—the opinion concludes without setting precedent beyond parties involved per Rule 1:36-3.
Attorneys listed include Eric G. Kahn (for appellant) from Amy L. Peterson PC & Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins; Amy L Peterson also appeared on briefs; Joseph J Michalowski represented respondents Keyla J Rivas Acosta & Kenia B Acosta Feliz from Goetz Schenker Blee & Wiederhorn LLP; Docket No L-1431-24.
Source: A292324_Hinton_v_Acosta_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
