Wildwood Sued Over Child-Led DUI Simulation Crash
Source: Press of Alantic City Business. Casualplayhub News adds summary, context, and editorial framing while linking back to the original report.
A legal claim filed against the city of Wildwood and its police force alleges that a child was put behind the wheel of a golf cart during a simulated drunken driving demonstration, leading to a crash that injured several onlookers. The lawsuit, submitted on August 5 in Cape May County Superior Court, stems from an event held the previous year on August 6, 2024, as part of National Night Out, a nationwide community-building campaign.
According to court documents, Officer Jonathan Goraj of the Wildwood Police Department occupied the passenger seat while an 11-year-old boy, fitted with special goggles designed to replicate visual impairment caused by alcohol, operated the golf cart. The simulation took place on the outfield of a baseball field at Fox Park, outlined by orange traffic cones. During the exercise, the child pressed the accelerator, lost command of the vehicle, and plowed through the marked course, striking bystanders who had gathered to watch.
The plaintiffs include Christopher Hines, a resident of Wildwood, and a family traveling from Ohio: David and Lori Galambos, their daughter Rachel Kelly, and their two grandsons, Simon and Gideon. The lawsuit states that Hines, David Galambos, and Simon Galambos sustained physical injuries. Simon suffered a collapsed lung, a concussion, and damage to his neck and back, along with severe emotional distress. David Galambos experienced injuries to his neck, ribs, and hip, and what the suit describes as "severe emotional trauma." Hines reported harm to his neck, back, and legs. The mother, grandmother, and the other sibling witnessed the crash, the filing notes.
Wildwood officials had previously acknowledged that five people in total were injured in the incident. The lawsuit names as defendants the City of Wildwood, its police department, Officer Goraj, and the National Night Out organization—formally the National Association of Town Watch, based in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania.
Wildwood spokesperson Alicia Deluca stated that the city does not offer comments on ongoing litigation.
The core argument of the lawsuit centers on the foreseeable danger of the simulation. The plaintiffs contend that the police officer and department should have recognized the risks of placing a minor in the driver's seat during a demonstration intended to highlight the hazards of impaired driving. "Because the very purpose of the demonstration was to illustrate the dangers of impaired driving," the suit reads, authorities should have anticipated that control could be lost and that people nearby could be harmed.
Legal experts note that such simulations are common during community outreach events, often used to educate the public about the effects of alcohol on motor skills. However, this case raises questions about supervision and liability when minors are involved. The incident has also sparked broader discussion about the safety protocols in place for police-led demonstrations and how municipalities balance educational goals with public safety.
As the case moves through the courts, the city of Wildwood has not yet filed a response. The outcome could set a precedent for how law enforcement agencies conduct interactive safety demonstrations, particularly those involving children.
Article commentary
This lawsuit against Wildwood highlights a troubling intersection of community policing, public safety, and child welfare. At its core, the case questions the judgment of allowing an 11-year-old to operate a vehicle, even a golf cart, in a simulation designed to show the perils of intoxication—a contradiction that the plaintiffs' legal team has already seized upon. From a risk management perspective, the decision appears poorly calculated. The very purpose of impairment goggles is to distort vision and reaction time, making controlled driving nearly impossible even for experienced adults. Trusting a child to maintain control under such conditions seems to overlook basic safety considerations. The fact that an officer was seated in the passenger seat does not absolve the department of responsibility; if anything, it suggests a failure of supervision. Liability will likely hinge on whether the city and its police department acted negligently. In New Jersey, governmental entities generally enjoy immunity for discretionary actions, but that shield can be pierced when conduct is deemed willful or wanton. Here, the allegation is that officials knew—or should have known—that the demonstration carried a high risk of injury. The plaintiffs argue that the simulation's educational message inherently acknowledges danger, making the choice to put a child driver inherently reckless. Another layer involves the National Night Out organization. While it provides resources and branding for community events, the degree of control it exerts over local activities may determine its exposure. If the group simply promoted a generic event without directing the specifics of the golf cart exercise, its liability might be limited. Conversely, if it had a hand in designing or approving the simulation, the legal picture grows more complex. Public reaction has been mixed. Some residents defend the police, framing the incident as a tragic accident during a well-intentioned outreach effort. Others express outrage, arguing that law enforcement should have foreseen the outcome. The injuries to Simon Galambos—a collapsed lung and concussion—underscore the severity of what occurred. Emotional trauma claims from multiple family members add another dimension, suggesting the crash had lasting psychological effects. This case also serves as a cautionary tale for other municipalities. Police departments across the country frequently host DUI awareness events with similar goggles and golf carts. Many have done so without incident, but this lawsuit may prompt a reassessment of safety protocols. Simple changes—such as requiring adult drivers, enforcing speed limits, and ensuring clear zones free of spectators—could prevent future harm. Ultimately, the court will weigh whether the simulation was an acceptable community relations tool or a preventable lapse in judgment. Regardless of the outcome, the message is clear: public safety demonstrations must themselves be safe. When they become the source of injury, trust in law enforcement—the very thing these events aim to build—can be eroded.