Car Accidents

Published on: September 4, 2023

On appeal, the court determined that the damage award was excessive based on the plaintiff’s injuries. Sutherland v Don Dee Trucking Corp. 2008 NY Slip Op 52576(U) [22 Misc 3d 1101(A)]

by Stephen Bilkis

A rear-end accident, often called a rear-end collision, occurs when one vehicle crashes into the back of another vehicle. It’s one of the most common types of car accidents. Typically, the trailing vehicle is at fault for failing to maintain a safe following distance or failing to stop in time to avoid a collision. These accidents can result in various injuries, with whiplash being a frequent outcome due to the rapid forward and backward movement of the occupants’ heads. Rear-end accidents can vary in severity, from minor fender benders to more serious collisions, depending on the speed and force of impact.

In the case of Sutherland v Don Dee Trucking Corp., liability was not contested. The issue was the amount of damages. The Supreme Court, Kings County was asked to determine if the amount of damages the jury awarded was plaintiff was reasonable given the defendant’s injuries.

Factual Background

Published on: July 12, 2023

In a case where a police officer driving a patrol car caused an accident, the court considered whether sovereign immunity applied. Salas v. City of New York, 174 A.D.3d 991 (2d Dep’t 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

Salas v. City of New York involves the legal concept of sovereign immunity. The case is particularly relevant to individuals who seek damages from municipal corporations and highlights the importance of understanding the limitations of sovereign immunity.

Factual Background

The incident in question occurred on November 11, 2011, in the City of New York. The plaintiff, Ana Salas, was a passenger in a vehicle that was struck by a New York City Police Department (NYPD) vehicle driven by Officer Peter Agosto. The accident caused Salas to sustain serious injuries.

Published on: July 10, 2023

Court considered whether the doctrine of highway defect immunity applied to a wrongful death lawsuit against a municipality. Estate of Fuentes v. Town of Islip, 148 A.D.3d 845 (2d Dep’t 2017)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Estate of Fuentes v. Town of Islip addresses the issue of the responsibility of municipal corporations to maintain their roadways in a reasonably safe condition for the public.

Factual Background

The incident in question occurred on February 8, 2007, on Brentwood Road in the Town of Islip. The decedent, Luis Fuentes, was driving his vehicle when he struck a pothole and lost control of the vehicle, causing a fatal accident. The estate of Fuentes subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Town of Islip, alleging negligence in failing to maintain the roadway in a reasonably safe condition.

Published on: July 5, 2023

Court considered whether the City of New York had a duty to provide additional safety measures beyond those already in place in order to prevent pedestrian accidents. Brown v. City of New York, 945 N.Y.S.2d 390 (2d Dep’t 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

Brown v. City of New York is a notable case in the field of municipal liability in New York. The case involved a tragic accident in which a young boy was struck and killed by a car while crossing the street in front of his school. The boy’s family filed a lawsuit against the City of New York, alleging that the city was negligent in failing to provide adequate safety measures to protect children crossing the street.

Factual Background

On the morning of February 28, 2007, Amar Diarrassouba, a six-year-old boy, was crossing the street in front of his school in Harlem when he was struck by a car and killed. The boy’s family filed a lawsuit against the City of New York, alleging that the city was negligent in failing to provide adequate safety measures for children crossing the street.

Published on: July 3, 2023

Appellate Division considered whether a social host who serves alcohol to an intoxicated person can be held liable for injuries caused by that person to a third party. Vincent v. John Doe #1, 640 N.Y.S.2d 864 (2d Dep’t 1996)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the case of Vincent v. John Doe #1, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, considered the issue of whether a social host who serves alcohol to an intoxicated person can be held liable for injuries caused by that person to a third party. The case has significant implications for the social host liability doctrine in New York.

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Charles Vincent, was a passenger in a car driven by his friend, John McLaughlin, who had been drinking at a party hosted by the defendant, John Doe #1. McLaughlin lost control of the car and crashed, causing Vincent to sustain serious injuries. Vincent filed a lawsuit against McLaughlin and Doe #1, alleging that Doe #1 had served alcohol to McLaughlin, knowing that he was already intoxicated, and was therefore responsible for the injuries sustained in the accident.

Published on: June 26, 2023

Court of Appeals considered whether plaintiff’s wrongful death claim was properly dismissed. Adames v. Sheepshead Bay Rd. R.R. Co., 303 N.Y. 208 (1951)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Adames v. Sheepshead Bay Rd. R.R. Co., the New York Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a common carrier can be held liable for injuries sustained by a passenger when the passenger voluntarily disembarks from the carrier’s vehicle before reaching their destination. The case is significant because it clarifies the scope of a common carrier’s duty to its passengers and provides guidance on the circumstances under which a carrier can be held liable for injuries sustained by a passenger.

Factual Background

The plaintiff in Adames was a passenger on a bus operated by the Sheepshead Bay Road Railroad Company. The bus was traveling along Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn when the plaintiff signaled the driver to stop so that he could disembark. The plaintiff exited the bus and began to walk across the street, but was struck by a passing car and sustained serious injuries.

Published on: June 21, 2023

Injured worker can sue third party for damages even if workers’ compensation benefits have been paid. Brescia v. G.F. Hämmerle, Inc., 7 N.Y.2d 544 (1960)

by Stephen Bilkis

Brescia v. G.F. Hämmerle, Inc. highlights the rights of injured individuals to pursue damages beyond the scope of workers’ compensation benefits. New York workers’ compensation is a system designed to provide benefits to employees who are injured or become ill on the job. Under New York law, most employers are required to carry workers’ compensation insurance to cover their employees in case of a workplace injury or illness. The benefits available under New York workers’ compensation include medical treatment, lost wages, and disability benefits.

While workers’ compensation benefits can provide important financial support to injured workers, they are often limited in scope and may not fully compensate an injured worker for their losses. In some cases, injured workers may be entitled to pursue additional compensation through a personal injury lawsuit against a third party who may be responsible for their injuries.

Background

Published on: June 14, 2023

Comparative negligence in a Pedestrian Car Accident Case. Kozlowski v. Ringler, 189 A.D.2d 1025 (4th Dep’t 1993)

by Stephen Bilkis

Pedestrian accidents are a significant public health concern that can cause devastating injuries, permanent disabilities, and fatalities. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), pedestrian deaths accounted for 17% of all traffic fatalities in the United States in 2019. Despite the increasing awareness and efforts to reduce pedestrian accidents, they remain a significant problem. In Kozlowski v. Ringler, the court discussed determining liability in pedestrian accidents, including the concept of comparative liability.

In New York, comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that applies in pedestrian car accident cases. This means that the pedestrian’s own negligence or fault in the accident may reduce the amount of compensation they can recover. If the pedestrian is found to be partially at fault, the court will apportion fault between the parties based on their respective degrees of fault.

Background

Published on: June 7, 2023

Court found that the City of New York was liable in an accident involving a police car. Turley v. City of New York, 45 A.D.3d 547 (2nd Dept. 2007)

by Stephen Bilkis

Turley v. City of New York involved a high-speed police chase that resulted in a serious accident, and it has become an important precedent in cases involving police use of force and municipal liability.

Background

On April 22, 1999, Gary Turley was driving his car in Queens when he was struck by a police car driven by Officer Francis X. Lavelle. Officer Lavelle was pursuing a suspect in a high-speed chase when he lost control of his vehicle and collided with Turley’s car. As a result of the accident, Turley suffered serious injuries.

Published on: June 5, 2023

Court determined that in an accident involving a car and a motorcycle, the driver of the car was liable. Anderson v. Aloe, 99 A.D.3d 53 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

Anderson v. Aloe highlights the legal responsibilities of motorists when sharing the road with motorcycles. In this case, the plaintiff, Mr. Anderson, suffered severe injuries when a vehicle driven by the defendant, Ms. Aloe, made an abrupt left turn in front of his motorcycle, causing a collision. The case presents a number of important legal issues, including negligence, proximate cause, and comparative fault.

Comparative negligence is a legal principle that is applied in personal injury cases in New York and other states. Under comparative negligence, a plaintiff who is partially at fault for their own injuries can still recover damages from the defendant, but the damages will be reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault.

New York follows a “pure” comparative negligence rule, which means that a plaintiff can recover damages even if they were more than 50% responsible for their own injuries. For example, if a plaintiff is awarded $100,000 in damages but is found to be 30% at fault for the accident, their award will be reduced by 30% to $70,000.