New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: August 16, 2023

Court considered the presumption of negligence in rear-end vehicle accident. Passos v. Mta Bus Co., 13 N.Y.S.3d 4 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves a multi-vehicle collision on Second Avenue, between 78th and 79th Streets, where plaintiffs sought summary judgment against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and its bus driver, defendant Victor Moses. The collision included nonparty DiPaoli, plaintiff Passos, and an MTA bus. Plaintiffs claimed that Moses failed to maintain a safe distance, leading to the rear-end collision.

Cars must drive at a safe distance behind another car for safety reasons. Maintaining a safe following distance allows drivers to react appropriately to sudden stops or changes in traffic conditions. It provides a buffer that reduces the risk of collisions, giving drivers more time to brake or maneuver if the vehicle in front slows down or comes to a halt unexpectedly. This fundamental road safety practice is designed to prevent rear-end accidents and is a legal requirement outlined in traffic laws. Adhering to proper following distances enhances overall road safety and reduces the likelihood of accidents caused by tailgating or insufficient braking time.

In New York, a rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the following vehicle. This presumption arises from Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a). However, it is not conclusive, and the rear-ending driver can rebut it by providing a non-negligent explanation for the accident. The law recognizes that circumstances, such as sudden stops or other contributing factors, may impact the determination of liability. This nuanced approach allows for a comprehensive assessment of each case, considering all relevant factors before assigning fault in rear-end accidents.

Published on: August 14, 2023

Liability in a chain reaction accident. Rodriguez v. The City of New York, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 35496 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

A chain reaction car accident involves a series of collisions between multiple vehicles, typically initiated by an initial impact. In such incidents, the force of the first collision sets off a sequence of subsequent crashes as vehicles in close proximity react to the unfolding chaos. Determining liability in chain reaction accidents can be intricate, often requiring an examination of the specific circumstances surrounding each collision and the establishment of a clear sequence of events. These accidents highlight the importance of maintaining safe distances and attentive driving to mitigate the risk of contributing to or becoming a victim of such collisions.

Rodriguez v. The City of New York, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 35496 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020) involves a motion by defendants CDA Legacy and Luistro Mauricio to vacate prior court orders and deny plaintiffs’ and co-defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The focus is on chain-reaction collisions and the allocation of liability in such incidents.

Background Facts

Published on: August 9, 2023

Court addressed the issue of whether the defendant was negligent in maintaining its premises. Scheer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 110 A.D.3d 1039 (2d Dep’t 2013)

by Stephen Bilkis

Product liability cases are complex and require a thorough understanding of the law and the facts surrounding the case. In a premises liability case against a retailer store, the plaintiff must show that the store had a duty to maintain a safe environment for its customers and that it breached that duty by failing to address a known hazard or dangerous condition. The plaintiff must also show that the store’s breach of duty was the proximate cause of their injuries, and that they suffered damages as a result.

In Scheer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., the plaintiff, Susan Scheer, was injured while shopping at Stop & Shop Supermarket when a can of food fell from the shelf and struck her in the head. Scheer filed a lawsuit against Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., alleging that the store was negligent in failing to properly maintain and inspect its shelves.

Factual Background

Published on: August 7, 2023

Court considered a product liability claim based on an injury from a table saw. Whitaker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 120 A.D.3d 865 (2d Dep’t 2014)

by Stephen Bilkis

Whitaker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. is a product liability case that was decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York in 2014. The case involved a plaintiff, Michael Whitaker, who was injured while using a table saw that he had purchased from Sears. The decision of the court in this case is important because it provides guidance on the extent of a manufacturer’s duty to warn consumers about the dangers associated with their products.

Factual Background

In 2003, Michael Whitaker purchased a table saw from Sears. The table saw was designed and manufactured by Rexon Industrial Corp., a Taiwanese company. The saw was sold under the Craftsman brand, which is owned by Sears. The saw came equipped with a blade guard and anti-kickback pawls, which are safety features designed to prevent serious injuries.

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