New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: December 4, 2023

Whether the court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on negligence and the emergency operation defense under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104. Torres-Cummings v. Niagara Falls Police Dep’t, 193 A.D.3d 1372 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves a collision between a plaintiff’s vehicle and a police vehicle operated by Officer Kelly Rougeux of the Niagara Falls Police Department. The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in the accident, alleging negligence on the part of Officer Rougeux.

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 grants certain privileges to drivers of authorized emergency vehicles engaged in emergency operations. These privileges include the ability to exceed speed limits, disregard traffic signals, and proceed through red lights, provided it does not endanger life or property. However, these privileges are not absolute. The law mandates that even in emergency operations, drivers must operate their vehicles with “due regard for the safety of all persons.” If an emergency vehicle’s operation involves reckless disregard for others’ safety, the driver can be held liable for resulting damages.

In the context of a negligence case, if a driver is engaged in exempt conduct under § 1104(b) during emergency operations, the reckless disregard standard applies. This standard demands more than ordinary negligence and holds the driver accountable for injuries caused by the reckless exercise of privileges. On the other hand, if the injury results from conduct not covered by the specified privileges, ordinary negligence principles come into play. The determination of which standard applies can significantly impact the outcome of a case and the amount of damages awarded. Understanding these distinctions is essential for evaluating the conduct of emergency vehicle drivers and establishing liability in personal injury claims arising from accidents involving such vehicles.

Published on: September 18, 2023

Deliberate indifference to safety must be shown for a finding of a violation of the 8th Amendment. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution holds a critical role in safeguarding the rights of inmates, ensuring they are protected from cruel and unusual punishment. Despite the misperception that prisoners may not possess rights, they do indeed retain fundamental human rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment underscores a foundational principle of justice, asserting that punishments should align proportionately with the offense committed, avoiding any form of unnecessary suffering or humiliation. For instance, subjecting an inmate to solitary confinement for a minor violation, such as a verbal disagreement, constitutes a clear case of cruel and unusual punishment, highlighting the necessity to respect fundamental human rights within the criminal justice system.

Wilson v. Seiter, a landmark Supreme Court case in 1991, addressed the Eighth Amendment’s application to prison conditions. The case questioned whether inadequate prison conditions that do not involve direct physical abuse could still violate the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. This legal analysis was crucial in defining the threshold for Eighth Amendment violations concerning prison environments. The court’s decision in Wilson v. Seiter set an essential precedent impacting the rights of prisoners and the responsibilities of correctional facilities.

Factual Background

Published on: September 11, 2023

U.S. Supreme Court examined the question of excessive force used by corrections officers. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution safeguards individuals from cruel and unusual punishment. This vital clause aims to prevent excessive, barbaric, or degrading treatment in criminal justice systems. It establishes a fundamental principle of justice, emphasizing that punishments should be proportionate to the offense and should not involve unnecessary suffering or humiliation. For instance, sentencing a minor offense with a punishment like life imprisonment without parole could be deemed an example of cruel and unusual punishment, given its disproportionate severity.

Hudson v. McMillian, a pivotal case in U.S. constitutional law, underscored the legal contours surrounding the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. This case, decided by the Supreme Court in 1992, examined the excessive use of force against an inmate by prison officials, sparking significant debates about the protection of prisoners’ rights. The case questioned the permissible limits of force used by correctional officers, shedding light on the delicate balance between maintaining institutional security and upholding the rights and dignity of incarcerated individuals.

Factual Background

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: August 30, 2023

Prison officials can be held liable for injuries to an inmate if they show deliberate indifference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the context of the 8^th Amendment and incarcerated individuals, deliberate indifference is a legal concept that refers to a conscious and reckless disregard for an inmate’s safety or well-being. It involves a clear awareness of a substantial risk to an inmate’s rights, health, or safety, and a failure to take reasonable measures to mitigate that risk. It implies a purposeful or knowing neglect of the risk, showing a callous and uncaring attitude towards the potential harm, demonstrating a severe departure from acceptable professional judgment and prison standards. Deliberate indifference constitutes a violation of an inmate’s constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment.

Farmer v. Brennan, a seminal case in 1994, dealt with the Eighth Amendment’s applicability to deliberate indifference in the context of prison conditions. The case was significant in determining whether prison officials, by exhibiting deliberate indifference, could be held accountable for the harm inflicted on an inmate by fellow prisoners.

Factual Background

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