Personal Injury

Published on: August 2, 2023

Appellate Court found that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether a bottle of acetaminophen was defective. Kelly v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 73 A.D.3d 1019 (2d Dep’t 2010)

by Stephen Bilkis

Product liability cases arise when a product causes harm or injury to a consumer due to a defect in its design, manufacturing, or labeling. In such cases, the manufacturer or seller may be held liable for the damages caused. Product liability cases are complex and require the expertise of an experienced New York product liability lawyer. The case of Kelly v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is one such example where the plaintiff filed a product liability claim against CVS Pharmacy claiming that she sustained injuries due to a defective product.

To prove a defective product case, a plaintiff typically needs to demonstrate that the product in question was unreasonably dangerous due to a design flaw, manufacturing defect, or inadequate warning. The plaintiff must show that they suffered an injury or damages as a direct result of the product’s defect. Additionally, the plaintiff must show that the product was being used in a foreseeable manner at the time of the injury, meaning that the product was being used as it was intended or in a way that was reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer. To establish liability, the plaintiff must identify the party responsible for the defect, which may include the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of the product. To prove the defect, the plaintiff may rely on expert testimony, product testing, or other evidence that establishes that the product was unreasonably dangerous. If the plaintiff is successful in proving their case, they may be entitled to recover damages for their injuries, including compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Factual Background

Published on: July 31, 2023

Appellate Division determined that plaintiff presented enough evidence to proceed with her product liability claim. Ippolito v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 121 A.D.3d 529 (2d Dep’t 2014)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Ippolito v. Sears Roebuck & Co., the plaintiff, Linda Ippolito, alleged that she was injured by a defective product that she purchased from Sears Roebuck & Co. This case demonstrates the importance of product liability law and the duty that manufacturers and sellers have to ensure the safety of their products.

A product liability case is a legal case brought against a manufacturer, seller, or distributor of a product that has caused harm or injury to a consumer. The basis for the case is that the product is considered defective, either due to a design flaw, manufacturing defect, or a failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions for use. In a product liability case, the injured party seeks compensation for their injuries, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. These cases can be complex and often require the assistance of an experienced New York product liability lawyer with expertise in product liability law.

Factual Background

Published on: July 26, 2023

Did the defendant retail store breach its duty of care by failing to maintain the premises in a safe condition? Saleh v. Rite Aid Corp., 89 A.D.3d 1022 (2d Dep’t 2011)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Saleh v. Rite Aid Corp., the plaintiff brought a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant after slipping and falling on a wet floor in the defendant’s store. This case raises important legal issues related to premises liability and the duty of property owners to maintain safe premises for their customers.

Factual Background

On January 27, 2006, the plaintiff, Saleh, entered a Rite Aid store in Brooklyn, New York, to purchase items. While walking down an aisle, she slipped and fell on a wet floor. The plaintiff suffered injuries to her knee, hip, and back as a result of the fall.

Published on: July 24, 2023

Vasquez v. Church of God of Prophecy, 155 A.D.3d 807 (2d Dep’t 2017)

by Stephen Bilkis

Premises liability cases often hinge on the question of whether a property owner or occupier had notice of a hazardous condition that caused an injury. In Vasquez v. Church of God of Prophecy, the plaintiff brought suit against a church after she slipped and fell on a wet floor while attending a service. The case raised important questions about the duties of property owners to maintain safe premises and the burden of proof that plaintiffs must meet in premises liability cases.

Factual Background

On the day of the accident, the plaintiff attended a church service at the defendant’s property. While walking from the bathroom to her seat, she slipped and fell on a wet floor, sustaining injuries. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had negligently failed to maintain the premises in a safe condition and that it had constructive notice of the hazardous condition that caused her injuries.

Published on: July 19, 2023

In a premises liability case, the court considered whether there was constructive notice of the hazard. Vargas v. Target Corp., 137 A.D.3d 1094 (2d Dep’t 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff, Anna Vargas, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Target Corporation after she slipped and fell on a wet floor at one of its stores.

Factual Background

On December 22, 2008, Anna Vargas went to a Target store located in the Bronx, New York. While she was walking down an aisle in the store, she slipped and fell on a wet floor. Vargas sustained injuries as a result of the fall, including a fractured ankle and herniated discs.

Published on: July 17, 2023

Court determined that the NYCHA should have known about a dangerous condition. Nunez v. New York City Housing Authority, 65 A.D.3d 955 (2d Dep’t 2009)

by Stephen Bilkis

Premises liability is a legal concept that holds property owners and occupiers responsible for injuries that occur on their property due to their failure to maintain safe conditions. This means that property owners have a legal obligation to ensure that their property is free from any hazards or defects that could cause harm to people who visit the property. If a property owner or occupier fails to fulfill this duty, and someone is injured as a result, the owner or occupier may be held liable for the resulting damages. Premises liability cases can arise in a variety of contexts, including slip and fall accidents, dog bites, swimming pool accidents, and more.

Nunez v. New York City Housing Authority involves a dispute over the liability of a property owner for injuries sustained by a tenant. The case highlights the legal principles governing premises liability and the duty of property owners to maintain safe premises.

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.