Published on:

multi car accidentSometimes, your auto accident case may seem straightforward. “I was stopped and the other driver hit me from behind” is an example. Other times, the facts of your circumstance may be complex and multi-faceted. One recent example was a chain reaction accident in which the lead driver was hurt in the crash and then injured again when another driver struck him while he was on foot. Even the seemingly simple cases, though, can turn out to be complicated in actuality. If you have been hurt in an accident like that, you should ensure that you are prepared for whatever your case throws at you by having a skilled New York auto accident attorney representing you from the start.

The Appellate Division recently rendered a ruling in the chain reaction case in which the plaintiff was injured twice. The accident, which took place in 2013, was a real-life “series of unfortunate events.” Jonathan G. was stopped while waiting for a break in traffic in order to make a left turn. Jonathan N. and Brian were properly stopped behind the lead vehicle. Mary Beth, however, did not stop. She crashed into Brian, whose vehicle slammed into Jonathan N., who, in turn, crashed into Jonathan G. This collision caused Jonathan G. to suffer some harm.

The lead driver, however, was well enough to drive his vehicle onto an intersecting road. He then parked and returned to the accident scene to assist the other drivers and to exchange insurance information. On the way, though, 85-year-old Mary struck Jonathan G., causing him to suffer serious injuries.

Published on:

Brake lightsIn New York, blame for rear-end vehicle accidents operates under a specific set of rules. Generally, the rear driver is at fault for the accident because each driver has a legal obligation to operate his vehicle in a safe manner and to maintain a safe following distance behind the vehicle in front of his. If he has rear-ended the vehicle in front of him, it is typically true that, legally speaking, this was a result of the rear driver’s negligence in failing to maintain a safe following distance, and the front driver can potentially recover compensation for her injuries. To make sure you get the compensation that you legally deserve, retain the services of a skilled New York car accident attorney.

Bannelis’ case was an example of a rear-end accident in which there were no special circumstances, and the rear driver was responsible. Bannelis was driving in the Bronx when she was rear-ended, and the accident caused her to suffer injuries that prompted her to sue. While it is generally the case that a rear driver is legally liable for a rear-end crash, that is not always so. In some situations, there are valid non-negligent explanations for a rear-end accident. For example, if a vehicle traveling in open traffic on an expressway stops in the middle of that expressway and is rear-ended, the evidence may indicate that the front driver, rather than the rear one, was negligent for operating in an unsafe manner.

The Appellate Division upheld a trial judge’s decision to award Bannelis summary judgment in her favor, which meant that the defendant was declared legally liable, and that outcome was achieved without the injured woman having to undergo a full trial on the issue of liability.

Published on:

weldingIn your construction accident case, sometimes it may be the seemingly smallest or most insignificant things that can make big differences in the outcome of your case. That can be especially true when it comes to the analysis of your injury. Sometimes, the difference between being involved in an activity covered by the Scaffold Law and performing an act that is not covered can be very slight distinctions. To make sure that you have the information and evidence you need to obtain compensation for your construction accident injury, retain an experienced New York construction injury attorney to represent you.

One example of the importance of “sweating the small stuff” was the case of Miguel, a welding assistant. Miguel’s job was to create and install a waste disposal container and install it on a property in Brooklyn. He and his co-workers had already moved the container from a flatbed truck to a dolly and were preparing to roll it when the container fell off the dolly and landed on Miguel’s ankle, causing him significant injuries.

The worker launched a lawsuit to recover compensation for his damages under New York’s Labor Law. Specifically, Miguel argued that the accident demonstrated a violation of Section 240(1). The property owner sought to have the judge throw out the worker’s case, asserting that the activities that Miguel was completing were not covered under the Section 240(1) statute, The owner argued that Miguel was just engaged in the work of delivery and installation and that these tasks are not among those listed in the law. The owner’s argument compared Miguel’s work to that of someone doing “cosmetic maintenance or decorative modification.”

Published on:

Court of AppealsA very important new decision from the New York Court of Appeals could be a substantial benefit for people injured in vehicle accidents or pedestrian accidents. The high court’s ruling in favor of an injured sanitation worker was very important because it widens the sets of circumstances under which victims injured in accidents can go to court and use summary judgment to avoid full trials on the issue of liability. This lessens the circumstances in which a defendant can force a more protracted litigation on the victim, which can be stressful, time consuming, and expensive. When it comes to keeping up on changes in the law and how they can benefit you, rely upon the knowledge of an experienced New York car accident attorney.

The Department of Sanitation worker, Carlos, was at work when he was struck. During wintry weather, he was responsible for equipping sanitation trucks with tire chains and snow plows. While Carlos was working, a truck skidded on a slick surface and crashed into a Toyota car. The impact thrust the Toyota into Carlos, pinning him against a rack of tires. Carlos’ injuries were substantial. He eventually needed spinal fusion surgery and extensive physical therapy. He was permanently disabled from working as a result of the accident.

The worker sued the city for the damages he suffered. As is the case for many injury plaintiffs, Carlos sought a summary judgment in his favor on the issue of the city’s liability. Getting the judge to issue a summary judgment in your favor on the issue of liability can be an important benefit to your case. That means that the court has declared your opponent legally liable for your injuries without your having to go through a full trial on the question of fault. You can then focus on proving the extent of the damages you suffered.

Published on:

turn lane signIt is a position in which most drivers have found themselves at some point. You’re trying to turn left onto a busy four-lane road, but the traffic is too heavy. You decide to travel as far as the center turn lane. Drivers in the two lanes nearest you wave you out. So what happens if you go forward and then hit another car in the turn lane? Can you recover damages from that other driver if you’re injured? The answer is “perhaps yes,” as one recent case from the Buffalo area, and the court ruling it produced, demonstrated. One of the key things that you can take away from this situation is that you should never assume you cannot recover damages; always check with a knowledgeable New York car accident attorney first.

The accident that spawned the case took place in heavy traffic along Niagara Falls Boulevard. That stretch of the road had two northbound lanes, two southbound lanes, and a center turning lane. Diane entered the turn lane to make a left turn into a shopping plaza. Angela desired to turn left from a parking lot and get into the southbound lanes. Traffic was too heavy to allow Angela to get directly to the southbound lanes, so, after being waved forward by two stopped drivers occupying the two northbound lanes, Angela pulled into the turn lane. Once in the turn lane, she hit Diane. Angela was injured in the accident.

So, you might wonder, that means that Angela has no chance of recovering compensation for her injuries, right? Not necessarily. Even though Diane had evidence that Angela failed to yield the right-of-way, that was not the end of the case. Angela managed to avoid having her case thrown out on summary judgment because she presented evidence that, aside from the right-of-way issue, Diane committed a violation that played into the crash. Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1126(c) prohibits drivers from driving in a center turn lane for any distance more than what’s needed to execute a left turn safely. According to Angela’s argument, Diane wasn’t merely using the center lane to turn left; she was using it to get around stopped traffic.

Published on:

forkliftUnfortunately, construction accidents in New York happen much more often than they should. Statistics have shown that, in recent years, construction deaths have again spiked. Safety at construction sites should be everyone’s top priority. When proper safety protocols aren’t followed, and a worker gets hurt, the law here in New York may give him or her the opportunity to recover compensation for the harm suffered. To learn more about your rights and options if you’ve been injured at your construction job, you should contact an experienced New York construction injury attorney.

A tragic example of such an accident, reported by the New York Daily News, took place recently in Queens. The worker, Edgar, was an immigrant from Ecuador and working on a luxury high-rise construction project when he suffered his fatal accident. Edgar, who was an employee of a window company, was part of a team using a forklift vehicle to transport a stack of windows to a garage for storage. Edgar was standing on the rear portion of a forklift driven by a co-worker when a window fell on him. The impact crushed Edgar’s head, and he died.

According to the Daily News report, Edgar was often troubled by the lack of attention to safety at the site. “He used to say it was very dangerous to work there… He was afraid of dying. He always complained about it,” the victim’s brother-in-law told the news source. A “stop work” order had been issued for the site, but those orders don’t apply to the moving and storage of materials, which was the task Edgar was doing when he died.

Published on:

boom truckIn an injury case, there will be several key junctures and a number of essential hurdles you’ll have to clear in order to achieve a successful result. One of these is getting past a defense request for summary judgment because losing this motion means losing your case before you even get to trial. On the other hand, winning a motion for summary judgment that you filed means that you have succeeded in holding the other side liable without even having to go through a full trial. During this “motion practice” part of your case, make sure that you have a skilled New York truck accident attorney handling your case.

A case from Queens County arising from an accident at a rail yard is an example of such a successful result. Thomas and Christopher were sitting in a work truck when their truck was rear-ended by a boom truck that backed into them. Thomas and Christopher had intended to park near a shed that contained signal relays, but their path to their intended stopping point was blocked by another vehicle. They stopped along a narrow roadway, and that was when they were hit.

Thomas and Christopher were injured in the crash and eventually sued. Thomas and Christopher also asked the judge in their case to issue a summary judgment in their favor on the issue of the boom truck operator’s liability (and the employer’s vicarious liability). When you are asking the court to enter such a judgment in a vehicle accident case like this, there are two essential things you have to show. One is that the person who hit you was negligent. The other is that, in your conduct leading up to the accident, you were completely free of negligence on your part.

Published on:

cyclist accidentIn your personal injury case, document evidence may be a key component of achieving a successful result. To get to that successful outcome, though, you’ll have to make sure that the documents you want to place into evidence are admissible under New York law. Making sure that everything is in place to permit you to introduce all of your evidence is one of many key areas in which it pays to have a skilled New York bicycle accident attorney who is both knowledgeable and experienced in handling injury cases.

In one recent case, it was the defendant’s inability to get in desired evidence that hurt that party’s case. John was a bicyclist biking in the Syracuse area when he was hit by a vehicle driven by Deborah. John sued Deborah and her husband, who owned the vehicle Deborah was driving.

When you sue for the injuries you suffer in your bicycle accident, there may be multiple different options available to the opposition as they try to avoid paying compensation to you. One possibility is simply to assert that you were 100% at fault for the accident, which would mean that you are not entitled to a judgment and recovery. This was the argument advanced by the defense in John’s case.

Published on:

cracked concreteIn a premises liability lawsuit (such as a trip-and-fall or slip-and-fall case,) there are many potential arguments the defense may make, depending on the facts. In litigation, a property owner may try to argue that the defect that caused the trip and fall was open and obvious. That’s because property owners do not have a legal obligation to protect the people on their property from any hazards that are open and obvious to a reasonably observant person. Alternatively, in other circumstances, a property owner may try to argue that a defect was too trivial to allow for a court to find the property owner legally liable. To succeed, you will want proof on your side that the hazard that injured you was neither open and obvious nor trivial. These are some of the many important arguments you’ll need to make on your way to a successful outcome in your premises liability case. For answers to your specific questions about your trip-and-fall or slip-and-fall case, reach out to an experienced New York trip-and-fall accident attorney.

A lawsuit from Queens recently decided by the Appellate Division was an example of such a trip-and-fall case. Milagros was walking in the backyard of a property in Queens when she tripped and fell. The fall caused Milagros to suffer injuries, so she sued the homeowner for premises liability. The law says that all property owners must maintain their properties in a reasonably safe condition. If they fail to do that, and the hazard that results from this safety shortcoming causes someone to get hurt, that injured person can obtain compensation through a premises liability lawsuit.

In Milagros’ case, the hazard was improperly maintained concrete in the backyard, which had led to a crack developing (and Milagros tripping and falling as a result of that crack). In many situations, property owners and their insurance companies will not pay compensation without a legal fight. Many times, property owners will also try to avoid a trial by persuading the trial judge that the facts are insufficient to allow the case to get to trial, and, as a result, the defense is entitled to a summary judgment, which means that the plaintiff’s lawsuit gets thrown out.

Published on:

construction workersThere are multiple different ways to achieve an appropriate recovery for your construction injury. Depending on the facts of your case, you may need to proceed by utilizing a claim under one of the sections of the New York Labor Law, or your case may allow you to bring multiple claims under different sections of the law. Either way, your construction injury case may potentially entitle you to compensation. To learn more about your rights, talk to a knowledgeable New York construction injury attorney.

An example of an injury that allowed a worker to advance multiple claims was the workplace accident case of a man named Gerson. Gerson was employed by a contracting firm and working on a job at a New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) housing project in the Astoria neighborhood of Queens when he was injured in April 2014. At that time, Gerson’s job consisted of standing on top of a sidewalk bridge and handing wooden planks to his co-workers. While transporting a plank, Gerson tried to re-adjust that plank on his shoulder, lost his balance, and fell off the sidewalk bridge. Gerson fell on the side with no panel walls, so he fell shoulder-first onto the ground below.

The fall injured the worker, so he sued for compensation. When you, as a construction worker, are working on a job, there are certain legal obligations that the law imposes on both the owner of the property where you’re working and the general contractor on the project. These duties relate to providing workers with a safe place to work and also providing them with the safety equipment and protection devices they need to protect them from certain types of harm. One of these sets of harms includes “gravity-related” risks, which can mean something falling on a worker or a worker falling from a height. This is stated in Section 240(1) of the Labor Law.

Contact Information