Car Accidents

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.

Published on: March 8, 2023

Court found driver liable in a pedestrian accident because he did not exercise due care. Stathis v. Leonardis, 72 N.Y.2d 517 (1988)

by Stephen Bilkis

Pedestrian accidents can result in severe injuries, and the victim may be entitled to compensation for their damages. The law in New York provides protection to pedestrians, and drivers have a legal obligation to exercise reasonable care to avoid causing harm to them. In Stathis v. Leonardis, the New York Court of Appeals considered the issue of whether a pedestrian was entitled to compensation for injuries sustained in an accident involving a vehicle. This case is significant as it provides guidance on how courts in New York determine fault and damages in pedestrian accidents.

Background

The plaintiff in the case, Stathis, was a nine-year-old child who was walking home from school when he was hit by a car driven by the defendant, Leonardis. Stathis suffered severe injuries, including a fractured skull and a broken leg. The accident occurred on a busy street in Queens, New York, during rush hour traffic.

Published on: March 6, 2023

Duty of care that drivers owe pedestrians in New York. Weininger v. Hackel, 6 N.Y.2d 67 (1959)

by Stephen Bilkis

Weininger v. Hackel deals with the issue of negligence and the duty of care owed by drivers to pedestrians. New York State has a unique set of laws that govern the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians on the roadways. In New York, pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks, whether marked or unmarked. Drivers are required to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks and are also prohibited from passing vehicles that have stopped for pedestrians. However, pedestrians also have certain responsibilities, such as using crosswalks when available and obeying traffic signals and signs. Failure to adhere to these rules may result in a citation or legal consequences.

Background

On March 7, 1953, Margaret Weininger was crossing a street in Brooklyn when she was struck by a car driven by Max Hackel. Weininger sustained serious injuries, including a broken leg and a fractured skull, and was permanently disabled as a result of the accident. Weininger sued Hackel for negligence, alleging that he failed to exercise reasonable care and caution while driving and was therefore responsible for her injuries.