On October 31, 1958, a little girl was waiting in a mobile x-ray truck to be x-rayed. She was unaware that just behind the truck, a panel van was attempting to pull away from the curb. The panel van’s rear bumper became interlocked with the bumper of the car that was parked behind him. As the driver pulled around the x-ray van which was also parked against the curb, it pulled the car that was hung onto the bumper forward. The car was forced into the back of the x-ray van. The car accident caused the child to become injured. Her guardian filed a lawsuit against the driver of the van and the company that he worked for.
The driver of the panel van died of natural causes before the case came to court. The company that employed him and owned the panel van that he had been driving on that date admit that the van was there. They admit that the accident was reported to them. They do not know the specifics of the accident because the driver is no longer available to testify. The company asked the court permission to not be held to as high a standard of proof for their case because they are unable to know the details that led up to the accident. The court points out that following the accident, the company asked for and obtained a statement from the now deceased driver in reference to the circumstances surrounding the accident. A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer said the court also contends that the company is in fact in possession of an affidavit made by the driver and a copy of the accident report.
The company states that it is their understanding that the vehicle that became hung up on the panel truck was parked illegally. They maintain that there was no contact between their truck and the x-ray truck. They feel that they should not be blamed for the accident. They contend that the driver of the vehicle that was illegally parked and thus was the proximate cause of the accident.
The injured child’s guardian contends that the evidence as to the fault in the accident is overwhelming. The police report, and the statements taken from the driver when he was alive, all demonstrate that the accident was caused by the panel van when he backed into the parked vehicle behind him. A Suffolk County Personal Injury Lawyer said he then failed to stop and pulled the vehicle into the x-ray van where the child was located. The court contends that in this case even though the driver of the panel van is unable to testify at trial because of his death, there would be little to argue in his defense.
The guardian for the injured child filed a motion for summary judgment on the child’s behalf. That means that the court is able to determine at this point that there is no doubt that the driver of the panel van was at fault in the accident. The remaining litigation would only focus on the amount of damages that would be awarded from a jury. The court is always resistant to granting summary judgment rather than sending a case before a trial jury. Summary judgment is a last resort when a party to a litigation has proven beyond a doubt that there are no triable issues of fact that need to be settled by a trial. It is because there are no triable issues of fact that are left for a jury to settle that allowed the court to award a summary judgment in favor of the child who was injured. A New York Injury Lawyer said the company of the driver will have to pay damages to the girl.
At Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its truck accident Lawyers, have convenient offices throughout New York and the metropolitan area. Our personal injury lawyers can provide you with advice to guide you through difficult situations. Without an accident attorney, you could lose precious compensation to help your family.