You’ve probably heard that, in a rear-end collision, the driver of the rear vehicle is generally presumed to be at fault for the accident because that driver failed to operate his vehicle at a safe distance from the one in front of him. While that is often correct, it is not true 100% of the time. Sometimes, even when you rear-ended someone else, you may still be able to recover damages for your injuries. A recent accident case involving a car, a box truck, and an overpass provides an example of how this can occur.
Many times, success in a legal case can come down to what might seem like small details to a lay person. Take, for example, the case of a carpenter injured working on a job site owned by a school. The carpenter was able to secure a favorable ruling from the Appellate Division due in large part to the proof he had in his case that detailed carefully what his job did and did not entail. That proof allowed the court to determine that his job did not involve concrete or rebar, which meant that those substances weren’t integral to his work, and the worker could go forward with his injury case.
Life is full of frustrating and unexpected difficulties and challenges. The same can be true about accident litigation. Sometimes things go wrong that are outside your control. The key is how you respond. In the case of a pedestrian hit by a bus driver, she was able to overcome a state agency’s inability to provide her with a certified document she needed for her case. The plaintiff succeeded because she was able to use an alternative method of providing the court with the evidence she needed to win her case on the issue of liability.
As a worker in New York, the state’s Labor Law gives you certain rights when you’re hurt on the job. There are exemptions to this right to sue, though, if the person for whom you were working was a private homeowner. Even if you are hurt working for a homeowner, you may still be able to recover compensation. That exemption from Labor Law liability only applies if the homeowner uses the property for himself rather than for “commercial purposes.” In the case of one New York worker, he was allowed to pursue his case because, even though the person for whom he was working was the owner of the house, he had evidence purporting to show that the homeowner planned to rent the property out, which would qualify as a commercial purpose.
Any time you are involved in a vehicle accident, it is a traumatic time. Unfortunately, being injured and inside a disabled vehicle can also be a very vulnerable time. In the case of one woman in western New York, she suffered exactly such a double misfortune, getting hit by a driver who negligently pulled out of a gas station and then getting hit again by a drunk driver while she awaited medical personnel. When you are involved in a scenario like this, your injury case can be uniquely complicated, since it may involve proving that the defendant in your case is to blame for your damages (rather than another person who isn’t involved in the case.) In this case, the woman’s own testimony and expert opinion evidence were enough to secure a judgment of liability against the first driver, whose crash with the plaintiff inflicted concussion-related harm and cognitive damage on her.
If you slip and fall on a snowy or icy sidewalk abutting a business, the chances are you know you may have a case for recovering damages for the harm you suffered. But, what if the abutting property is an owner-occupied residential one? In some situations, you may still be able to pursue your claim, as was the case for one man in Queens County who was able to do so because of the actions the property owner took, which potentially triggered liability on the part of that property owner.
A construction worker injured while working on a renovation project at one of the world’s most famous sports and entertainment arenas – Madison Square Garden – got some good news recently when the Appellate Division upheld a trial judge’s ruling that granted summary judgment in his favor on the issue of liability in his negligence and Labor Law violations case. The ruling established that, since the fall protection provided involved the worker tying off his harness in a manner not compliant with OSHA standards, the trial court was entitled to rule as a matter of law that the worker did not receive adequate fall protection.
When you’ve been injured in a multi-vehicle accident, your case can be very complex. There may be many steps and hurdles involved in making sure that your case proceeds properly and successfully against all of the drivers who may have been responsible for the damages you suffered. One example of this was a recent case originating in upstate New York, in which the injured driver won her appeal and was allowed to pursue both other drivers involved in the crash that harmed her.
In any case in which you seek damages for the injuries you suffered, there are varying degrees of success and multiple ways to arrive at a favorable judgment. Securing a summary judgment on the issue of liability means avoiding the time, expense, and uncertainties inherent in litigating an issue before a jury. For one woman driving in upstate New York, her favorable outcome on appeal meant that she was entitled to avoid exactly these things, since her case was sufficient to establish that the other driver was liable as a matter of law.
In many parts of construction and related industries, there are undocumented workers who complete a significant portion of this type of work. Sometimes, an undocumented worker might get injured on the job. So what happens when an undocumented worker who’s allegedly been hurt on the job files a Labor Law case under the name on his employment documents, rather than his actual name? According to one recent Appellate Division decision, as long as the false name doesn’t impede the defendant from defending itself and doesn’t impair the court’s resolving the case fairly, it does not entitle the defendant to obtain a dismissal.