Published on:

Although it may be June, the inevitable fact is that the calendar will eventually turn to December and January, and, with it, New York will again be faced with snowy and icy weather. Along with those things will come dangerous icy sidewalks. When you are injured due to a snowy or icy sidewalk slip-and-fall, the issue of negligence may be straightforward. Someone was responsible for conducting snow and ice removal, someone allegedly did not perform the task properly, and, as a result, you slipped and fell and suffered harm. What may be more challenging, in some situations, is identifying the proper person or entity to sue. For advice and representation in undertaking all of these tasks, reach out to an experienced New York premises liability attorney about your case.

An example of all that goes into putting together a sidewalk slip-and-fall case was the lawsuit filed by Michelle, a Manhattan pedestrian. While walking along a sidewalk, Michelle slipped and fell on black ice near the corner of Second Avenue and 27th Street. The fall caused Michelle to suffer substantial injuries.

Michelle sued, asserting that negligent snow removal led to the formation of the dangerous black ice condition on the sidewalk. In Michelle’s situation, the exact location of her fall (near the corner of two streets) added an extra layer of possible complication. The building next to the sidewalk where Michelle got hurt was one with a mixture of business and residential tenants. The first-floor tenant was a major pharmacy. The pharmacy contended that the building owner was responsible for all snow and ice removal. If the pharmacy was right, the building owner would be the proper party for Michelle to sue. The owner, however, contended that it was only responsible for clearing 27th Street, while the pharmacy had the obligation to keep Second Avenue clear. If the owner was correct, the precise location of Michelle’s accident would be key to determining which entity was liable to her.

Published on:

The law of premises liability can apply in a variety of different situations. A premises liability case can arise from a shopper’s trip (or slip) and fall in a store. It can emerge from a tenant’s tripping or falling while on the property owned by the landlord. It can also potentially happen when a worker is injured on the job. Regardless of the origin, if you’ve been hurt while on property owned by someone else due to a hazardous condition on that property, you may be entitled to compensation. To learn more about your case, contact a skilled New York premises liability attorney soon.

A example of the last of the three hypothetical injuries listed above happened to a Westchester County worker in the summer of 2013. Richard was working on a mechanical system at a large shopping mall in downtown White Plains. Richard’s job required him to get on the roof of the mall, which was accomplished via a small set of wooden stairs. As Richard was getting back down those stairs, one of the steps allegedly cracked and forced the worker to jump off the staircase to avoid falling. The result of the jump left Richard with substantial injuries, so he sued the mall owner for his damages.

Although Richard was a worker at the mall site, he pursued his lawsuit under the legal theory of premises liability. This allows various types of people whom the law calls “invitees” to recover compensation for hazards on a landowner’s property. Whether you are a worker at a shopping mall or a personal guest at a private home, you may be entitled to compensation if you were hurt because the property owner failed to keep up the property and allowed a hazardous condition to exist.

Published on:

In New York, in order to obtain compensation in a lawsuit filed under the Scaffold Law, your injury must have been gravity-related. Fortunately for injured workers, New York courts over the years have established a relatively broad definition of gravity-related. An object does not necessarily have to have fallen down or have swung upward in order for an accident to be gravity-related. The Court of Appeals has made it clear that, just because a worker and the object that injured him were on the same level, that does not automatically mean that the accident was not gravity-related. There are many different ways to succeed in a Scaffold Law case. To learn more about your options, talk to a knowledgeable New York construction accident attorney.

An example of a viable case that lacked a substantial elevation differential was the injury suffered by a worker named Jeff. Jeff was part of a crew hoisting a 1,000-pound steel beam. Specifically, Jeff was responsible for supervising the crew that was doing the actual hoisting, which was controlled by a mechanical switch. Jeff was reviewing blueprints when a crew member hit the hoist button prematurely, which sent the beam swinging toward Jeff. It hit him and resulted in Jeff suffering a torn biceps tendon.

The injured worker sued to recover compensation for the harm he suffered in the accident. His case asserted that he was entitled to compensation because the defendants violated Section 240(1) of the Labor Law. That statute, sometimes known as the “Scaffold Law,” aims to protect construction workers from harm resulting from elevation-related risks of harm.

Published on:

If you suffered an accident while working at your construction job, you may have many questions. Can I seek compensation for my harm? If I can, whom should I sue for damages? How long do I have to take action? These are all useful questions, and the answers to them can help choose a legal option that’s right for you. To find out the answers to these and more questions about your case, consult a skilled New York construction injury attorney.

An accident case from Broome County provides an example of a worker’s successful litigation. Daniel was an employee of a masonry subcontractor when he suffered his injuries. He was setting up a scaffold as part of a college dormitory renovation project when a truck tire rim fell from the dorm’s roof and hit Daniel in the head. The roofing subcontractor had placed the rim on the roof, supported by a safety warning barrier that notified rooftop workers they were near the edge of the roof.

The roof was several stories up, and the rim weighed 25-30 pounds, so the impact with Daniel’s head was substantial. Daniel filed a lawsuit alleging that the general contractor and the roofing subcontractor were liable for his injuries. He had two bases for his claim for compensation. One was Section 240(1) of the Labor Law, which allows injured workers to recover damages as a result of a “elevation-related risk” that caused the worker’s injuries. The other was Section 241(6), which allows workers to pursue compensation if a violation of the Industrial Code (which is a set of workplace safety rules established by the State of New York) took place and led to the accident.

Published on:

In some auto accident situations, there may be the possibility of obtaining a judgment against many different people and entities. It is very important to assess the evidence very carefully and make thoughtful trial strategy choices. If you leave off a viable defendant, it could cost you later in terms of getting full compensation. When it comes to making these and other essential decisions in your case, it is beneficial to avoid going it alone and instead to rely upon the knowledge and experience of a skilled New York City car accident attorney.

A recent case from the Hamptons provided an example of pursuing many defendants for one two-vehicle intersection crash. The facts of the case were as follows. Stephanie was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Valerie. At an intersection in East Hampton, Valerie’s vehicle collided with one driven by Arlene. At the time, Arlene was operating a vehicle owned by her employer. Valerie was headed east and had a stop sign. Arlene was traveling south, and she did not have a stop sign.

Stephanie sued Arlene, Arlene’s employer, Valerie, and the owner of Valerie’s vehicle. Arlene and her employer asked the trial court to dismiss the case against them. Their argument was that Valerie violated Section 1142(a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law by failing to yield at the stop sign. Since Valerie’s failure to obey the stop sign was the sole cause of the accident, Stephanie could not be entitled to compensation from Arlene and her employer.

Published on:

Achieving success in an auto accident case requires many things. One of those things is the ability to locate, collect, and organize all of the evidence that supports your version of the events that led to the collision. You may need photographs, eyewitness accounts, official reports, and expert opinions. A piece of evidence that contains a statement from the other driver that backs up your assertions can be especially helpful. When it comes to amassing all of these pieces of evidence and then putting them together in one cohesive and persuasive case, rely upon the skill and experience of a knowledgeable New York car accident attorney to give your lawsuit what it needs for success.

An example of this type of scenario played out recently in a case from Brooklyn. The case involved an intersection collision between a taxi and a scooter. The two vehicles were traveling in opposite directions on Fifth Avenue in Brooklyn when they collided at the intersection of Park Place.

The scooter driver, Teddy, sued for the injuries he suffered in the accident. Teddy sought summary judgment to hold the taxi driver liable. The scooter driver’s theory of the case was that the taxi driver was in the process of attempting a left turn when he improperly failed to yield the right of way and made an illegal left turn right into the path of Teddy’s scooter.

Published on:

Many times, when the phrase “premises liability” pops up, it can refer to two types of civil cases for damages. One group is “slip and fall” cases; the other is “trip and fall.” These two types of premises liability issues emerge because a person or entity that owned or controlled a property failed to keep the property in a sufficiently safe condition (or failed to warn about hazards), which allowed someone on the property to either slip or trip and suffer injuries. While those may be the facts behind many, if not most, premises liability cases, you may still be entitled to sue and recover compensation even if your accident was neither a slip-and-fall nor a trip-and-fall, such as when you are injured due to debris falling on you in your apartment. To find out more about your rights if you’ve been injured, talk to a skilled New York premises liability attorney.

The recent case of a Yonkers woman named Jeanine, who sued in 2016, was an example of a situation in which the injured person was entitled to pursue her case, even though it was neither a slip-and-fall nor a trip-and-fall. One day, according to Jeanine’s lawsuit, debris fell from the ceiling of her apartment bathroom, crashing into her and causing injuries. The tenant launched a premises liability case based upon the alleged failure to maintain the apartment, including its ceilings, in an adequately safe condition.

When you are injured while on a commercial property, you may have rights and options against multiple people and companies. You may be able to sue a commercial tenant, the landlord, or perhaps both, depending on the exact facts of your case. If you are injured on a residential rental property, you may also have the opportunity to pursue an award of damages against multiple people and entities. In Jeanine’s case, her facts supported suing both the LLC that owned the building and a second corporation. Jeanine’s complaint in the lawsuit made sure to assert that both the LLC and the second corporation “owned, managed, controlled and maintained” the property. That was important because making an assertion that a person or company owned, managed, controlled, or maintained a property is essential to being allowed to pursue a claim of premises liability against that person or entity.

Published on:

Construction workers in New York have to work with a wide array of devices, ranging from simple ladders to heavy machinery. The law requires that you receive equipment that is in a safe working condition. If that isn’t the case, and you get hurt as a result, you may be entitled to compensation. To discover more about your options regarding your construction injury, get in touch with a knowledgeable New York construction accident attorney about your situation.

One example of this type of case was the lawsuit pursued by a construction worker named Wanderlei. In 2015, Wanderlei was working a project repainting a bridge that spanned the Hudson River south of Albany. The project called for sandblasting the old paint from the bridge in advance of repainting it. Wanderlei’s job consisted of vacuuming up the steel “shot” or “grit” that was used in the sandblasting process.

On his second day on the job, Wanderlei was hurt. The hose he was using to vacuum detached from a larger hose. This disconnection allegedly jerked the man forward, causing him to step on some of the grit beneath him. He then slipped and hit his head on a bridge appurtenance.

Published on:

Sometimes, the key to a successful personal injury case is not the documents you discover or the expert witnesses you deploy, but the questions you ask of the person you are suing for damages. In some cases, the key to success (or, at least, the key to avoiding an unfavorable summary judgment) can be the admissions made by your opponent herself. To get that information, though, you need to know how to question a witness. This is just one of the many ways that having an experienced New York pedestrian accident attorney on your side can help you and your case.

An example of this type of scenario was played out in the case of Jennie, a pedestrian who was hit and injured. Jennie had just finished dinner at a restaurant in a small upstate town. Returning to her vehicle meant crossing Route 9N, since the restaurant was on the other side of the road from the parking lot. As Jennie crossed the road, a driver hit her, causing significant injuries.

The evidence in the resulting legal case showed that the driver was traveling at about 30 mph, which was the speed limit for that stretch of Route 9N. The proof also indicated that the driver had her headlights on (because it was after dark). All of this evidence might seem to point in favor of the driver with regard to judging whether or not the driver was negligent in crashing into the pedestrian.

Published on:

Sometimes, 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.

Contact Information