New York Injury Lawyer Blog

Can You be Held Liable for Knowingly Letting Another Drive Drunk in New York? The Court Answers this in Gushlaw v Miller

Thu, 17 May 2012 18:22:10 -0500

When you are injured because of the actions of another person, you may not know what you are entitled to. This is why it is so important to have the guidance of an experience New York injury attorney to help guide you in your New York personal injury case.

As we go about our daily lives, we all have a duty to conform to a reasonable standard of care. This requirement helps protect us from people behaving negligently and causing us to suffer personal injury.

Gushlaw v. Miller is a case that arose because of the question of what kind of duty a person owes to third parties. This was where two adults who were under the legal drinking age decided to get in the car and navigate the roadways.

Joseph Clukey (Clukey) and Matthew Milner (Milner) were nineteen and twenty respectively. They had met to travel to a party at a hotel in Rhode Island. After purchasing a case of beer illegally, it was decided the Clukey would drive the forty five minutes to the hotel. Upon arriving both of the men began to drink heavily. They each consumed approximately seven or eight beers each, and began to become "loud and obnoxious."

The hostess of the hotel party, who was not yet at the age of adulthood, became frustrated with the intoxication of the two men and asked them to leave. Milner objected to either of the men driving, as both were extremely intoxicated. Milner only lived three blocks away from the hotel party. However, Clukey decided he would drive the two men back to the convenience store where Milner had left his vehicle. This would enable Milner to then drive his car back home.

The issue in this case was not Clukey driving while intoxicated, although that is illegal. The issue arose because Clukey knew that Milner was also intoxicated and still drove him to get in his car to drive home.

Several hours after Clukey left Milner in the parking lot, Milner was driving home drunk at excessive speeds. Milner drove through an intersection and crossed the center line, causing him to collide head-on with the vehicle driven by Eldrick Johnson (Johnson). Both Milner and Johnson died from injuries sustained in this motor vehicle accident.

Johnson left his widow and four minor children. His widow (plaintiff) brought this lawsuit against Milner, Milner's father, Allstate Insurance, and subsequently added Clukey. Plaintiff argued that Clukey knew or should have known that Milner was intoxicated and unfit to drive a motor-vehicle; and because he had this knowledge he owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to all persons using the public highway. This argument was based on a theory that Clukey had breached his duty to all persons on the highway by allowing Milner to drive drunk; and that this breach caused the plaintiff's husband to die.

Clukey countered the plaintiff's argument by stating that by imposing liability on him the court would place an affirmative duty on adults to prevent other people who are intoxicated from operating a vehicle.

The court in this case found that Clukey did not have a duty that he violated in this case. A person who knowingly lets another person drive drunk cannot be held liable under negligence for injuries the drunken party causes to another. Therefore, the plaintiff's negligence action against him failed and this court entered summary judgment on behalf of Clukey.

This case illustrates the legal conflict between individual responsibility and public welfare.

New York Personal Injury Watch: McIlroy v. Gibson's Says that Causation in Motorcycle Accidents Can be Analyzed Broadly

Tue, 15 May 2012 21:58:14 -0500

When we all drive, we assume that any New York accident we have will be caused by the other person. However, what have courts interpreted as the cause of motorcycle accidents throughout the North East?

Our experienced New York injury attorneys understand the many questions you may have, and we are here to help guide you in your case.

In Maine recently, the court dealt with a question of causation in McIlroy v. Gibson's Apple Orchard. The issue was whether the owner of a large sign located close to the road, could be held liable for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident.

This case arose where McIlroy (plaintiff) was on his motorcycle passing through an intersection. He saw a vehicle being driven by Charlotte Small (Small) maneuver into his lane. It is undisputed that Small had the right of way. Upon seeing this maneuver, the plaintiff thought that Small had not seen him because of a large sign that was close to the road. Plaintiff swerved his motorcycle causing him to lose control causing him to sustain serious injuries.

Gibson's Apple Orchard (defendant) had placed an eight-foot square sign as an advertisement on the side of the road near the intersection. This sign was so large that it caused the view of the road to be obstructed. Small testified in his deposition that he had seen the plaintiff but that he did maneuver because of the sign in order to see the rest of the road.

Plaintiff sued the defendant claiming that the defendant had been negligent in the placing of the sign, and that this negligence had caused his motorcycle accident.
In order to prove a case for negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the four elements of negligence. These elements are: the defendant had a specific duty of care; this duty of care was breached by the defendant; the breach of duty by the defendant was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries; and that there were actual damages to the plaintiff. To prove this type of case, the plaintiff only has to prove that it is more likely than not that the defendant is guilty of negligence.

Causation is usually the most complicated part of a personal injury lawsuit. Not only does the plaintiff have to prove that the defendants' breach of duty was the actual cause of the plaintiff's injuries; the plaintiff also has to prove that the defendants' actions were the proximate cause of their injuries. To be liable for negligence, the defendant needs only to have acted recklessly or carelessly, not necessarily intentionally.

In application to the facts of this case, the plaintiff had to show that not only was the defendant's placement of the sign the cause of his injuries but that the defendant could have foreseen that someone on a motorcycle could be involved in an accident because of the sign.

As support of the plaintiff's contention that the defendant's placement of the sign was the direct cause of his injuries; the plaintiff argued that the size and location of the sign obstructed driver's view of the road. And because of this obstruction it could be reasonably foreseeable to the defendant of the possibility of an accident when they placed the sign.

This court found that where there is a potential question for the jury and where the jury could find it to be a reasonable inference from the facts that the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff's injuries, the case must be remanded to the lower court to decide the question of liability. Basically, plaintiff's arguments were found to be possible and the court found that the deciphering of the case facts should be done by a reasonable jury.

Thus, this case illustrates that were there is a plausible argument made that leads to possible inferences, a jury must hear the case.

Seabolt v. County of Albemarle Analyzes Government Immunity in New York Premise Liability Cases

Wed, 09 May 2012 19:08:35 -0500

When you go to a city park, you expect that the park is maintained and safe for your use. If someone negligently maintains property in New York, it is important to have an experienced New York injury injury attorney advocating for you.

Seabolt v. County of Albemarle is a recent premise liability case out of Virginia. This case deals with the duty owed by your state and local governments to maintain your local parks. Also, this case discusses the potential defense of local or state government in their claim of sovereign immunity.

Sovereign immunity is a type of protection created by statute to protect states or local governments from civil and sometimes criminal liability. Where a government entity enters a claim for sovereign immunity, the court loses its power to hear the case and bind the parties to its decision. This immunity has been limited in the United States through the adaptation of the Federal Tort Claim Act. This Act allows the imposition of liability on a government entity where this entity employs someone who committed a civil wrong while acting in the scope of their employment, causing injury to another person. Each state has adopted this Act to some degree by creating individual state tort claims acts.

Seabolt (plaintiff) argued that there was a waiver to the immunity granted to county governments in this case. This argument was hinged on the state statute that says that a county operating a park, playground or recreational facility is liable for damages caused by the gross negligence of the county's officers or agents. See Virginia Code §15.2-1809.

The County of Albemarle (County) countered this argument claiming that the statute plaintiff relied on was only a waiver applicable to cities and towns, not counties. In other words, the County stated that cities and towns operating a park where its employee acted grossly negligent can be held liable for the employee's civil wrong; however, a County government could not be held liable under this same statutory provision.

Through a detailed observation of the statute, the court found that the Virginia provision states that Virginia cities or towns cannot be found liable for the civil wrong of an employee but it could be found liable for the damages resulting from its employee's gross negligence in maintaining the property. This immunity from civil liability was imputed on counties.

In order to apply the statute to the case, it was noted that there is a distinction between negligence and gross negligence. Gross negligence is where the negligent conduct or omission by a government employee was so egregious or careless. Additionally, the court looked to precedent and found that it has been a general practice of the courts in Virginia to find that a county can only sue or be sued in cases relating to contract disputes.

Because there was no state provision allowing for a lawsuit to be filed against a county for simple negligence, this court found in favor of the county and the plaintiff was unable to obtain the damages she sought.

Heat-Related Injuries in Manhattan and Elsewhere Likely with Rising Temps

Tue, 08 May 2012 09:38:55 -0500

As we recently discussed on our New York Injury Lawyer Blog, the temperatures are rising and everyone is in trouble if they don't take the proper safety precautions to stay cool in the summer season.

We recently discussed the risks that small children face when they're left in vehicles unsupervised. Now we're talking about the risks that grownups have in the heat, more specifically on the job. Construction workers and other employees who work outside in labor-intensive positions have some serious risks regarding heat-related injuries in Manhattan and elsewhere during the upcoming season. The temps are rising and employees are heading outdoors to get some work done. It's important for employers and employees to create new, or review existing, procedures regarding heat illness during this time of the year. Having a plan in place and having knowledgeable workers can help to reduce the risks of one of these accidents.

According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), their national outreach initiative has been re-launched to help to educate employees and employers about the risks of working in the heat. This year's campaign mirrors much of last year's and works to spread the word and raise awareness about these potentially fatal accidents.

Our Manhattan construction injury attorneys understand that there are simple ways to beat the heat, it's just making sure that employers and employees use these steps to do so. There are three words, water, rest and shade, that may be the key between a safe working environment and a potentially fatal work accident this summer. Workers are urged to stay hydrated throughout the day and to get plenty of rest in the shade. Workers should be allowed frequent breaks when working in high heats. These three simple words can save lives!

Each year, there are thousands of employees across the U.S. who suffer from various heat-related illnesses on the job. If these injuries are not addressed immediately, fatal injuries can result. Every year since 2003, there have been over 30 workers who have died on the job because of these kinds of accidents.

"It is essential for workers and employers to take proactive steps to stay safe in extreme heat, and become aware of symptoms of heat exhaustion before they get worse," said Dr. David Michaels, with OSH.

The Administration has released a number of informational and instructional materials through this year's campaign to help to get these safe practices underway on the work site. Employers and employees are urged to check them out on the WATER. REST. SHADE. website.

Check the newly-released web page for information regarding how to prevent heat-related illnesses, how to spot the symptoms of a heat-related injury and how to treat a victim if you or someone you love has been affected. Staying in the know can help to save lives.

Lack of Blinkers Causing Car Accidents in New York City and Elsewhere

Tue, 01 May 2012 08:33:51 -0500

Do you use your blinker in traffic?

Chances are you're one of the ones who don't. According to a recent study from the Society of Automotive Engineers, drivers fail to use their turn signals about 2 billion times every day. Yes, nearly 800 billion times every year. The study revealed that drivers don't use their turn signals roughly 50 percent of the time when making lane changes and about 25 percent of the time when making turns. This poor driving behavior equates to about 2 million car accidents in New York City and elsewhere each year, according to MSNBC. That's about twice as many accidents as distracted driving!

"This is a first of its kind report on a subject that amazingly, has never been studied," said Richard Ponziani, P.E., President of RLP Engineering.

Our New York City car accident lawyers understand that many drivers know that law enforcement officers don't really push the usage of blinkers. They're more focused on nabbing drivers for speeding and running red lights. The study says that that's one of the main reasons why drivers aren't using them! Drivers aren't only urged to use their blinker because it's the law, but it's been proven highly effective in reducing the risks of accidents. According to Ray LaHood, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), blinkers are some of the most simple and effective ways to keep motorists alive.

Safe driving advocates and researchers aren't only asking law enforcement officers to step up the enforcement, but they've also come forward with a new technology that just might be able to do the trick. They've recently designed the "Smart Turn Signal" and it works much like the seat belt reminders that many of our vehicles already have. It's a system that would help to alert drivers when they're not using their turn signal enough or when it's been left on. Just as the vehicle would beep when you're not using your seat belt, the Smart Turn Signal would beep when a blinker has been left on after a turn or when it senses that a driver isn't using it as they should be. This new technology is much less expensive than the current trip mechanisms in our vehicles and has been proven to be more effective as they reminder drivers not only to turn off their signals, but to use them when they're not.

There were about 11 million car accidents across the country in just 2009. During that year, there were nearly 1,200 roadway fatalities in the state of New York, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Many of these fatalities could have been prevented if drivers just used a turn signal. It's a device that's designed to do exactly that -- save lives. Let's all reach deep down inside and follow the traffic rules that we know are right and can help to make our roadways safer for everyone.

Thompson v. Nguyen Says that You Need Medical Evidence to Prove Your Injuries were Caused by Your New York Car Accident

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:15:04 -0500

New York car accidents are very common. When you are involved in a car accident case in New York it is critical to know what you are required to prove. Our experienced New York injury attorneys understand what it takes to get you the award you deserve.

In a recent Mississippi decision, the court discusses the proof required in car accident cases. Thompson v. Nguyen, No. 2009-CT-01147-SCT (Miss. S.Ct. Apr. 19, 2012). This case arose in 2002 when Thompson (plaintiff) was rear-ended by Nguyen (defendant). Plaintiff was stopped at a red light when Nguyen stopped behind her. Upon reaching for her purse, defendant's foot slipped off of the brake pedal and her car slightly banged into the plaintiff's.

There was no damage to either party's car causing the parties not to call the police and just exchange contact information. After leaving the site of the accident, the plaintiff called the defendant to meet her at the police department so they could file a police report. Defendant agreed and the police report was prepared to be sent to both parties' insurance companies.

Plaintiff had previously suffered from severe migraines which caused her to seek treatment from Dr. Martin (Martin). After the accident, the plaintiff began to have severe neck pain. Plaintiff told Martin about her neck pain and the recent accident, causing Martin to order a series of tests. The MRI that was conducted on the plaintiff showed that the plaintiff had a preexisting degenerative-disc disease as shown by the disc bulges in her neck. Martin gave the plaintiff pain medication and referred plaintiff to a physical therapist.

After two years of physical therapy the plaintiff continued to complain about neck pain. The physical therapist referred plaintiff to a neurosurgeon named Dr. Kesterson (Kesterson). Kesterson evaluated the plaintiff and determined that the plaintiff needed surgery on her neck to correct the abnormal discs. Two years after the car accident with the defendant, plaintiff underwent neck surgery.

Plaintiff then sued the defendant for negligence. Plaintiff argued that the defendants' negligence caused her neck injury, and plaintiff sought compensation for the cost of medical treatment associated with her accident related injuries.

Defendant acknowledged that she was liable for the accident however; she argued that the plaintiff's injuries could not have been the result of such a minor accident.

The plaintiff had the burden of proof in this case. She was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's negligence was the direct and proximate cause of her neck injuries. Plaintiff offered the testimony of her doctors and a medical expert on her condition. The three doctors testifying on behalf of the plaintiff acknowledged that they were not aware of the circumstances surrounding the car accident between the parties. They were only testifying as to plaintiff's medical condition and treatment.

After being provided with hypotheticals, the three experts indicated that they could not testify with reasonable medical certainty that the plaintiff's severe neck injuries were caused by the accident. Additionally, the plaintiff acknowledged that she had been in a prior accident with a drunk driver.

The plaintiff's evidence was presented in front of a jury and the judge gave the jury instructions of the burden of proof the plaintiff had and the elements of negligence. After analyzing the facts of the case, the jury found that the plaintiff failed to prove that her neck surgery was a result of the plaintiff hitting her vehicle. Therefore, the jury only awarded the plaintiff with the costs associated with the physical therapy.

The Dangers Involved in New York Construction Site Accidents Discussed in Ruscilli v. Indus. Comm'n.

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:40:12 -0500

New York construction accidents are very common and can be extremely dangerous. Our experienced New York injury attorneys understand that a work accident can hinder your life. We are here to help you get the benefits you need to get the medical care you deserve.

David Barno (Barno) worked as a laborer. State ex rel. Ruscilli Constr. Co., Inc., v. Indus. Comm'n., No. 2012-Ohio-1588 (Ohio S.Ct. Apr. 12, 2012). He was hired by an employment agency which assigned temporary workers to construction projects. This employment agency assigned Barno to work on a renovation project for Ruscilli Construction Company (Ruscilli). This site had several openings in the concrete that led down to the basement. The workers who were familiar with the construction site were familiar with the location of these openings. However, Barno had not been informed of the presence of these openings. On his third day of working on the site, Barno was instructed to remove some wood that was left on the floor within the construction site. Upon doing this, Barno lost his balance and fell back into a fifteen-foot-deep hole. He sustained severe injuries to his face and head.

Barno argued that he was injured while working for Ruscilli because Ruscilli had failed to comply with the specific safety requirements surrounding the floor openings on construction sites. Barno received initial workers' compensation benefits; however, he sought additional benefits because of Ruscilli's alleged violation of specific safety requirements (VSSR) stipulated in state statute. The Ohio statute provided that any floor openings had to be guarded by a guard railing and toeboard, a cover with a safety factor, or the use of a safety belt or harness. Ohio Adm. Code 4123: 1-3-04(D).

Ruscilli denied any such VSSR, and a proceeding began before a workers' compensation commission staff hearing officer (SHO). Ruscilli had the site foreman and the company corporate safety secretary testify as to the safety measures on the construction site. Webb, the safety secretary, indicated that there was customarily plywood sheets placed over any floor openings. These plywood sheets were nailed down by special nails that went into wood and concrete making them difficult to be moved or lifted. Additionally, the foreman testified that the plywood had a painted warning stating "hole" to be visible to the workers.

Barno argued that the plywood covering the hole was thin, had no sign on it and it was not nailed in. Because of this, the SHO found that Ruscilli had violated the state statute controlling floor openings on construction sites. Ruscilli appealed this SHO decision claiming that the SHO had abused its discretion by basing the case decision on factual mistakes.

Upon a review of the case, the facts presented, and the legal analysis, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the SHO decision could not be upheld because there were several major errors involving law and fact. This court dealt with the question of whether this plywood cover used by Ruscilli could be accidentally displaced.

Because the SHO had misstated the state statue to include the requirement that the cover could not be easily displaced; this court found that Ruscilli had not actually committed a VSSR. Therefore, the decision of the SHO granting Barno additional workers' compensation benefits was not upheld.

New York Child Injuries Because of Negligence Discussed in Davis v. Devereux Foundation

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:14:58 -0500

Negligence often causes injuries to children in New York.

If you or someone you love has been injured because of the negligence of someone else, it is important to have an experienced New York injury attorney to represent your rights.

A recent case illustrates the complexities that can arise when placing our loved ones in the hands of a care facility. Davis v. Devereux Foundation, No. 066800 (N.J. S.Ct. Feb. 29, 2012). Roland Davis (plaintiff) was diagnosed with autism, mental retardation, attention hyperactivity disorder and pervasive developmental disorder. Because of this, plaintiff acquired a history of aggressive and combative behavior. Plaintiff required constant supervision and relied on a picture system for his communication. Plaintiff was placed in a non-profit care facility called Devereux Foundation (defendant or Devereux) by his mother when he was twelve years old.

Devereux was a New Jersey organization that cared for people with emotional, educational and developmental disabilities. It was a general practice of the facility to assign a residence counselor for each resident to make sure that the resident received care, supervision and assistance throughout the resident's daily schedule. These counselors documented the resident's progress and development. Because these counselors had such a critical role in resident treatment, Devereux conducted special screening, background checks, a physical evaluation, drug testing and fingerprinting. Devereux even required recommendation letters. This thorough screening process was conducted when they hired Charlene McClain (McClain) as a resident counselor.

McClain had been assigned to care for plaintiff and on several occasions when the plaintiff became aggressive with McClain. Plaintiff was said to have been stomping, kicking, screaming, spitting and occasionally involved in a physical altercation. Plaintiff attacked McClain and had to be pulled off of her and taken to his room. The next day, McClain was assigned to care for plaintiff. McClain warned up water in the microwave and threw it on plaintiff as he was getting out of bed, scalding him. After doing this, McClain instructed the plaintiff to get in the shower where she brought another counselor in to look at the burns on his pelvis, groin, lower abdomen and leg. The burns were so bad that the plaintiff was admitted to the hospital for six days for treatment and remained permanently scarred.

Plaintiff's mother saw the burns on the plaintiff and filed suit against McClain and Devereux. McClain later admitted that she brought the water to the plaintiff's room because she was going to use it if the plaintiff kicked her. She also confessed that she was "just mad" and threw the cup of water at the plaintiff without any provocation. McClain pled guilty to second-degree bias intimidation and third-degree aggravated assault and was sentenced to three years in prison. The problem in this case was surrounding Devereux's liability for breach of non-delegable duty to protect plaintiff. Plaintiff's mother argued that Devereux is guilty of negligent care, negligent supervision, wanton and willful disregard for the plaintiff's rights, and vicarious liability for the actions of McClain.

Plaintiff argued that Devereux had a duty to protect the plaintiff from harm and negligent care because the defendant was acting "in loco perentis." This means that the defendant had assumed parental liability for the care and treatment of plaintiff. However, by imposing a non-delegable duty this would create even a more heightened liability that was not justified by the nature of potential risks. The court notes that by holding an employer liable for unforeseeable intentional acts of an employee would discourage non-profit companies from opening.

because the plaintiff could not show that McCain's premeditated, unprovoked and unforeseeable violence was done to benefit Devereux, this court held that it would not accept the imposition of a non-delegable duty on Devereux.

Teen Car Accidents in Manhattan Likely during Prom, Graduation and Summer Break

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:13:49 -0500

As we close out the month of April, teenagers across the state will be gearing up and heading out for prom, graduation, summer break and a whole lot of fun.

It's during this time of the year that these young drivers face some seriously high risks for car accidents in Manhattan and elsewhere. To help to reduce their risks and to get safe driving habits back to the head of the line, officials and safe-driving advocates with the Ford Driving Skills for Life (DSFL) program are launching new programs and events to reach thousands of teens across the country and revive the importance of these safe habits.

According to the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), auto accidents continue to be the leading cause of death for this young age group (young drivers between the ages of 15- and 20-years-old). It's during this season that teens request, and receive, extended curfews and spend more time behind the wheel, increasing their risks for an accident.

Our Manhattan injury lawyers understand that the second half of 2011 returned an increasing trend in the number of fatal car accidents among this young age group of drivers. Experts take this increase as a sign as to what is going to happen throughout the following year and they're making moves to head it off before it gets out of control. That's why officials are stepping in with safe-driving programs and are asking parents to get in on the effort, too. Parents and guardians are asked to talk with their teen drivers before allowing them out to celebrate the end of the year madness.

"Unfortunately, safety can take a back seat to the excitement associated with the many celebrations around prom and graduation," said Jim Graham, manager, DSFL.

Top causes of teen car accidents, according to a study in the Accident Analysis and Prevention journal:

-Failing to scan surroundings to locate hazards, accounting for more than 20 percent of teen accidents.

-Driving too fast for the current traffic, weather and roadway conditions, accounting for more than 20 percent of teen accidents.

-Driving while engaging in distractions, accounting for about 20 percent of teen accidents.

Every year, about 3,000 teens die on roadways across the United States. Distracted driving is one of the top causes for these fatal accidents. As a matter of fact, these young drivers have the highest proportion of distracted drivers involved in fatal crashes.

Parents are asked to talk with the teen drivers in the household and reiterate the importance of safe driving habits. Don't let safety take a back seat during this dangerous time of the year. Equip your teen driver with the skills to keep them safe and alive on our roadways.

Injuries in New York City Increasing with Temps

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:39:14 -0500

According to NBC's Health Video, heat-related injuries in New York City and elsewhere in the area are completely preventable when taking the proper safety precautions.

If you're not careful through, serious injuries, including death, can result. One of the most vulnerable groups to these kinds of injuries are children. For the next few weeks, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will be working to raise awareness about the risks of child injury and the risks for hyperthermia and heatstroke. The campaign, "Where's baby? Look before you lock," is helping to remind parents, caregivers, babysitters, daycare providers and others who transport children to look in the vehicle before getting out and pressing lock.

The campaign is working to make this a new habit of all childcare-providing adults.

There were nearly 50 children who died in these kinds of accidents in 2011, being left unattended in a motor vehicle. These kinds of accidents are the number one cause of non-crash, vehicle-related fatalities for kids who are 13-years-old and younger.

Our New York City injury attorneys understand that you may not think it feels that hot out, but you'd think differently if you were left in a stationary vehicle. Children face risks of heatstroke and hyperthermia even when cars are left on, the air conditioner is on full blast and the windows are down. You don't realize how hot it can be. This is why the new NHTSA campaign is working to get parents and childcare providers in the habit of checking the entire vehicle for children before getting out. May sound silly and you may think you can remember a kid in the car, but the truth is that it happens all the time. Now, kids are getting out of school, they'll be riding in vehicles more often and their risks will be much higher.

"It is hope that the simple tips from this campaign will save lives and help families avoid unnecessary heartache," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Messages of this campaign will be popping up on radio and internet ads nationwide and will be advertising tool kits and local outreach programs designed to get parents into this habit.

According to David Strickland, NHTSA Administrator, these accidents can happen to anyone. No one's safe.

Tips to help prevent these kinds of accidents:

-Never leave a kid in a car unattended, regardless of how short of a time you plan on leaving them.

-Look in all seats before getting out of your vehicle.

-Place reminders near the driver's seat to remind you to check the vehicle.

-Keep important items in the back seat to force yourself to turn around before exiting the vehicle.

-Ask childcare providers to call you if your child doesn't show up when they're expected.

Fatal Crane Accident in Manhattan Brings Up Safety Concerns -- Again

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:59:27 -0500

A recent crane accident in Manhattan that left a man dead could have been prevented, officials say.

The long boom of a construction crane that crashed at the Manhattan work site was supposed to be checked out this week by the city's building authority. The initial inspection couldn't be completed because the crane was being used, so it was put off until later, according to the Times Union.

The crane involved in the fatal work accident was last inspected earlier this year, in the beginning of January. The January inspection concluded that the "Crane cannot be laid down to inspect boom section, safetys only checked."

Our New York construction accident lawyers understand that the cab and the station were determined to be in satisfactory conditions. The follow up to complete the initial inspection for that crane had been scheduled for two days after the accident occurred. The inspection before that, back in July of 2011, determined that there were no deficiencies with the crane at that time.

But that was then and this is now. In the most recent crane accident, a 30-year-old worker was killed when the boom broke and fell apart as it was moving rebar at a site where the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) was building the extension of the No. 7 subway line past Times Square.

A number of officials and agencies are still investigating the accident to determine the exact cause. Included in these investigating teams are officials with the MTA, the Manhattan district attorneys and the local police department.

As a result of the accident, the transit company has made an announcement stating that it would be inspecting every one of its cranes at all of its sites throughout the city to help make sure that all others are being operated correctly and safely.

This is the city's third deadly crane accident in just the last four years. It also comes after a number of scandals involving corrupt or lax oversight scandals involving the industry.

Back in 2008, following two serious crane accidents that ended up killing nine people and damaging several buildings, officials in New York City completely overhauled the safety procedures and rules regarding cranes.

The particular crane in the Manhattan accident was exempt from many of the new rules because it was operating for an independent state authority.

Christine Quinn, the city's City Council speaker, says that the lack of adherence to these new rules could be the main cause of the accident.

"The MTA should follow those rules that we worked so hard to devise," said Jessica Lappin, a City Council Member.

New York Personal Injury Case: Negligence in Himmelstein v. Windsor

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:33:50 -0500

As we travel hectically though our days, we often overlook the fact that different parties are responsible for the safety of our roads. In order to prevent New York personal injuries, states and cities have a duty to keep the roads safe and to warn the public of dangers on their roads.

The court in Himmelsetin v. Town of Windsor et al. discusses municipal and state liability where a plaintiff suffers injuries because of a defect in the road. When you are injured because of the fault of someone else, you need an experienced New York accident attorney to help you identify the responsible party and get the award you deserve.

This case was a highway defect claim that addressed the question of whether a town can be held liable for injuries suffered as a result of defects in the state road. The court found that the plaintiff pursued his claim against the wrong party.

Himmelstein ("Plaintiff") was riding his bicycle on a town road which had a heavy flow of traffic. Because of this traffic, plaintiff was forced to use the breakdown lane of the road between the fog line and the curb. On the side of the road the town's police department had a radar trailer stationed. Plaintiff collided with this radar trailer and suffered various personal injuries as well as economic damages.

Plaintiff sued the town and department of transportation employees claiming that the town had breached its statutory duty of care when it allowed this radar trailer to be stationed on the side of the road. Additionally, plaintiff alleged that the town and the town's agents were guilty of negligence and in the alternative, nuisance.

Nuisance is a legal principal derived from English common law which has been adopted in the U.S. This area of law addresses an individual's rights to be free from anything that causes significant intrusion on an individual's life by causing injury of discomfort. There are two types of nuisance recognized: private nuisance and public nuisance. In order for the nuisance to qualify as a private nuisance, courts have held that the person affected must have an interest in the property where the intrusion is occurring. For example, the victim would be the owner of property or be leasing the property. With every legal interest in land comes the right of quiet enjoyment of that land. If there is anything done that interferes with this right of quiet enjoyment, it is considered to be the civil wrong of nuisance.

Conversely, public nuisance is used to describe actions or omissions that cause damage or inconvenience to the public. This principal of public nuisance includes any interference with public health, safety, peace or convenience.

In this case plaintiff argued that the town and its employees had failed to warn the public of the presence of the radar trailer and because of this failure to warn, the plaintiff suffered injuries. The plaintiff also argued that because his injuries were the result of a highway defect which was created by the town, the town should be held liable.

The town argued that because the road the plaintiff was traveling on was a state highway, the town had no duty to warn or keep the road in question safe. Because the town had no duty here, they argued that they are not the proper party to be held liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

The police office radar trailer was in, upon or near the road causing an obstruction or hindrance to the purpose of traveling on the road. Because of the placement of the radar trailer, the court looked to governing statute that states that: the town is liable for defects which are defined as any obstruction that creates a condition that renders a town road unsafe. However, the issue in this case became whether the town can be held liable for any defects to a state highway.

The court found that the town could not be held liable in nuisance because the town was not responsible for maintaining the safety of a state highway. Furthermore, the court found that the state could not be held liable because of the "sole proximate cause doctrine." This doctrine specifies that in order for a state or municipality to be held liable for plaintiff's injuries, the road defect must be the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Because of this doctrine, the state cannot be held liable where the injuries were the result of a road defect and the negligence of a third party.

But the court does clarify that this doctrine does not prevent the plaintiff from suing the state for its alleged failure to warn of the dangers associated with the obstruction in the road.

This case illustrates the complexities of the law and how important it is to have an experienced New York personal injury attorney.

Car Accidents on Long Island Common Despite Anti-Distraction Laws

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:00:09 -0500

"Texting while driving is illegal and endangers the lives of New Yorkers across the state," said Governor Andrew M. Cuomo.

Both texting and talking on a hand-held cell phone may be illegal while driving in the state, but we're still seeing far too many New York car accidents as a result of distracted drivers.

From just July of 2011 to February of 2012, officers with the New York State Police wrote nearly 7,500 tickets to drivers throughout the state for texting while driving. Another 11,260 tickets were issued to drivers in New York who were busted using hand-held electronics behind the wheel.

It's apparent that distracted driving remains a danger on our roads! Laws are there and drivers just aren't listening.

For that reason, every April is dedicated as National Distracted Driving Awareness Month. With this year's campaign, we are urging drivers of all ages throughout the state of New York to drive by the spirit of the law and to take the pledge to drive distraction free.

The pledge is nationally organized through the National Safety Council and our New York car accident attorneys urge you to join! Drivers from across the country will be participating. The journey to safer roadways and fewer distracted driving car accidents starts here and it starts with you. Take the first step and take the pledge.

Take the NSC's Pledge Help Make Our Roadways Safer:

-Pledge to keep all cell phones, text messaging devices and other electronic devices out of the driver's seat.

-Pledge to speak up if you're riding with a driver who is engaging in distractions.

-Pledge to spread the word. Talk with friends and family members about the dangers and the risks that are associated with distracted driving. Your talk may be able to help keep them safe on our roadways.

According to the National Safety Council, about 25 percent of all car accidents involve a driver who is using a cell phone during the collision. These drivers and these kinds of accidents took the lives of roughly 3,000 people in 2010. Every single one of these accidents and these fatalities were completely preventable, if drivers were to just pay more attention to the task at hand -- driving. Phone conversations and text message can wait!

The problem is that many drivers think that they're skilled enough to juggle both tasks -- talking on a cell phone and driving safely. The truth of the matter is that a number of studies have proven that the human brain can't do both safely. As a matter of fact, brain function is reduced by nearly 50 percent when someone tries to do both at the same time.

Help make our roadways safer and pledge to put away the phones and electronics just while you're driving.

Second Fatal Work Accident in Manhattan Lands Company in Big Trouble

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:01:47 -0500

There's been another fatal work accident in Manhattan. The same general contractor that was heading the project during the first project was heading the project during this second accident when the building collapsed.

What's most alarming about this accident is that this problem had already been addressed and it was supposed to be fixed. Bovis Lend Lease made a legal agreement back in 2008 to update its safety practices, according to WYNC. The 2008 contract came after a fiery and deadly fire at the Deutsche Bank building. Two firefighters were killed in this 2007 accident. In the most recent accident, the building was being taken down as part of the expansion project of Columbia University. In the accident, a 69-year-old worker was killed and two others were seriously injured.

It has not been specified if the company was in fact upholding its end of the agreement and was working on its safety procedures. This agreement established after the building fire at Deutsche Bank was a non-prosecution agreement.

Our New York injury lawyers understand that the company said that it would bring on an independent monitor to overlook the workings of the new and improved safety initiatives and to figure out whether or not the company was bringing on capable sub-contractors. The agreement was to last for 5 years. The monitor of the project was to supposed to submit reports regarding progress. The Manhattan District Attorney wasn't able to produce those reports.

"The reports are not public and I will decline comment for now," said spokeswoman Erin Duggan

According to the Department of Buildings, safety investigators will be looking into the fatal accident for more information. Regarding the preliminary investigations, employees cut right through one of the building's structural beam, which is believed to have likely been the cause the collapse of the building.

Breeze National, a construction company that is based out of Brooklyn, was in charge of demolishing the building. The Department of Buildings reports that the company already had two prior violations back in March for neglecting to make sure that the construction site was safeguarded and for neglecting to notify the DOB that the work at the site had stated.

Both of the accidents (the one in 2007 and the most recent one) occurred under the supervision of the same man, according to reports.

When hazards are discovered at a work site or anywhere else on the job, they are to be corrected to help ensure employee safety. In the case of the Bovis Lend Lease accidents, a legal agreement was made to correct these scenarios. The corrections failed and the company should be held liable. Federal standards are in place to protect employees and it's our job to make sure that these rights are recognized and protected.

Distraction-Related Car Accidents in New York City - Teen at High Risks

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:30:57 -0500

Distracted driving continues to be one of the biggest concerns of safe driving advocates nationwide. As more studies are conducted, it's clear that drivers of all ages are taking their eyes off of the road and onto other things while they're driving.

Teen drivers are some of the most frequent culprits of this dangerous driving habit. It's no wonder why these young drivers have the highest risks for car accidents in New York City and elsewhere.

According to Forbes, the National Transportation Safety Board recently held a one-day forum in Washington D.C. to discuss these risks among all drivers, but especially the younger ones. The forum discussed the findings of a recent study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety that focused on the dangers of distracted driving among teen drivers.

Our New York City injury lawyers understand that distracted driving-related car accidents took the lives of more than 3,000 people in 2010. Of the distracted drivers contributing to these fatal accidents, teenage girls were the ones who were most commonly engaging in these activities. They were twice as likely to engage in electronic-related distractions behind the wheel as male drivers of the same age.

Officials believe that this dangerous driving habit contributes to more deaths than are actually recorded. It's tough to record when a distraction was involved in an accident as drivers are not likely to admit to it and officers have no way of proving otherwise.

In the recent AAA study, researchers concluded that female teen drivers were twice as likely to engage in distractions involving electronics than their male counterparts. They were actually more likely to involve themselves in all distractions except turning around in the driver's seat and talking with others outside of the vehicle.

Transportation officials have even turned to automakers to solve this problem, asking them to turn off "unnecessary" in-car technology while the vehicle is in motion. Automakers have yet to grab hold of this suggestion, saying consumers won't be too happy with the result. Even if in-car electronics were disabled, drivers could bring along their own distractions, putting us back where we started.

Regardless of what distractions our children can engage in while driving, it's important to remind them of safe driving habits. Talk with them about the proper driving behaviors and how to stay safe on our roadways. Parents are some of the most influential people in a teen driver's life.

"Continue the conversation with your child. Set a good example. They are always watching and modeling our behaviors," said Carol Ronis, senior communications manager for AAA. "Keep your hands on the wheel, eyes on the road and mind on the task."