Articles Posted in Car Accidents

Even seemingly minor rear-end collisions can cause significant injuries. Although the second driver in a rear-end crash is typically deemed responsible, the first driver must nonetheless prove fault and that the accident caused them to suffer harm in order to recover damages. It is not uncommon in lawsuits arising from rear-end collisions for the defendant to admit fault but to argue that the plaintiff did not actually suffer serious harm as a result of the crash. Recently, a New York court assessed what a defendant must prove to establish they did not cause a plaintiff’s harm in cases arising out of rear-end collisions. If you were hurt in a car crash, it is in your best interest to speak to a Syracuse personal injury lawyer as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was driving her vehicle when it was struck from behind by a car driven by the defendant. The impact caused the plaintiff’s vehicle to propel forward into the car in front of her. She suffered injuries in the accident and subsequently brought negligence claims against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the issues of whether the plaintiff’s alleged harm arose out of the accident and whether she suffered a severe injury. The court denied her motion, and she appealed.

Establishing a Car Accident Caused a Serious Injury

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion because she met her initial burden of proof by establishing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury that was causally related to the accident. Further, the defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the presence of a triable issue of fact in her opposition. Continue Reading ›

When rear-end collisions occur, it is presumed that the party that struck another motorist from behind is at fault. The second motorist can refute this presumption by producing evidence showing a non-negligent reason for the crash. If they cannot, however, judgment should be granted in favor of the plaintiff as a matter of law. The evidence needed to defeat a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit arising out of a rear-end collision was the topic of a recent ruling issued by a New York court. If you were hurt in a crash caused by another driver, you might be owed damages, and it is advisable to meet with a Syracuse personal injury lawyer promptly.

The Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was operating a scooter in the right lane of a highway and was followed by a bus driven by the defendant. As they approached an intersection, the plaintiff moved into the left lane of traffic, after which the defendant moved into the left lane as well and struck the plaintiff. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries in the crash and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant. After discovery closed, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted the defendant’s, after which the plaintiff appealed.

Evidence Needed to Establish a Non-Negligent Reason for a Rear-End Collision

On appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court order to the extent that it granted the defendant’s motion. The appellate court explained that under New York law, a rear-end crash with a vehicle that is stopped or stopping demonstrates a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the second driver. As such, the second driver must provide a non-negligent reason for the accident to rebut the inference of negligence. Continue Reading ›

Pursuant to New York’s no-fault insurance law, people can only file civil claims for damages if they sustain serious injuries in a motor vehicle collision. As such, regardless of whether a party caused a car crash, they will not be deemed liable for damages unless the plaintiff can meet the serious injury threshold. In a recent decision issued in a car accident case, a New York court described what evidence is needed to demonstrate that a plaintiff suffered a serious injury as defined by the statute. If you were involved in a collision, it is smart to speak to a Syracuse personal injury lawyer to examine whether you may be able to recover damages.

The Subject Accident

Allegedly, the defendant was driving in the rain when he approached an intersection. He stopped at the intersection for several seconds to ensure that he could safely make a left turn. As he removed his foot from the brake, his car rolled forward and struck the plaintiff, who was walking in the crosswalk at the intersection. The car stopped moving immediately after it hit the plaintiff.

Reportedly, the plaintiff was transported to the hospital, where x-rays did not reveal any fractures. She complained of extreme pain, however, and later reported that she was unable to complete any of her daily activities. She underwent extensive treatment for pain and reduced mobility in her back and neck as well. She ultimately filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting negligence claims. The defendant conceded liability but moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that she suffered a serious injury as required to recover damages under New York law. Continue Reading ›

When drivers do not leave adequate room between their vehicles and the cars in front of them, they run the risk of causing a rear-end collision. In some instances, rear-end collisions have chain effects, causing a multi-car pile-up. Typically, however, the driver of the middle vehicle in a three-car accident caused by a rear-end crash will not be liable for harm suffered by its passengers. This was demonstrated recently in a ruling issued by a New York court in a car accident case. If you were injured in a motor vehicle accident, it is in your best interest to speak to a Syracuse personal injury lawyer to discuss what you must prove to recover damages.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff sustained injuries in a collision that occurred when she was riding as an adult passenger on a school bus operated by the defendant driver and owned by the defendant company. The accident occurred when a person driving behind the bus struck the bus from behind, causing it to propel forward and strike the vehicle in front of it.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants alleging their negligence caused her injuries. The defendants moved for dismissal via summary judgment, and the trial court granted their motion. The plaintiff then appealed. Continue Reading ›

Technological advances generally make cars increasingly safer and easier to drive. When such technology fails, though, it can have disastrous consequences. When a vehicle’s anti-collision technology does not operate as the manufacturer indicated it should, it may provide a basis to pursue claims against the manufacturer. While some claims may be successful, it is unlikely that fraud is one of them, as illustrated in a recent New York opinion. If you were hurt in a collision caused by a defect with your vehicle, you should confer with a Syracuse car accident lawyer to establish what damages you may be owed.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was driving a vehicle manufactured by the defendant when he was involved in a collision. He suffered significant injuries and filed a lawsuit against the defendant asserting multiple causes of action, including fraud. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, via a dealer in a showroom and through its website, advised the plaintiff that the vehicle’s autopilot feature would allow him to take a hands-off approach to driving.

Reportedly, he was advised that it possessed automatic steering and braking capabilities and could detect cars in adjacent lanes. The autopilot feature failed to activate when a car cut the plaintiff’s vehicle off, however, and he swerved into another lane and struck a vehicle the autopilot feature failed to detect. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s fraud claims, arguing the plaintiff failed to set forth a viable claim. The court ultimately agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s fraud claim. Continue Reading ›

Typically, when a rear-end collision occurs, the second driver is deemed at fault. There are some exceptions, however, that would allow for the imposition of some degree of liability on the driver of the vehicle that was struck. One exception was recently discussed in an opinion issued by a New York court in a case in which the plaintiff sought summary judgment on the issue of comparative fault. If you were harmed in a collision, you might be owed damages, and you should speak to a Syracuse car accident lawyer to discuss your potential claims.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped at a red light when it was struck from behind by the defendant driver. Immediately after the impact, a vehicle driven by a police officer that worked for the defendant city struck the second car, causing it to again hit the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff, who suffered injuries in the collision, filed a lawsuit against the defendants. The defendant city asserted the affirmative defense of comparative negligence. The plaintiff then filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of comparative fault. The trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Comparative Fault in Car Accident Cases

On appeal, the trial court ruling was affirmed. The appellate court explained that, under New York law, a driver approaching another car from behind has a duty to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and following distance, in consideration of the conditions present at that time, to avoid a collision. Accordingly, a rear-end collision with a vehicle that is stopping or stopped establishes, prima facie, the negligence of the operator of the second vehicle. As such, the second driver must rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent cause for the crash. Continue Reading ›

Car accidents are generally caused, at least in part, by negligent driving. Other factors may cause or contribute to bringing about collisions as well, though. For example, if a road suffers from an unsafe design, it may increase the likelihood of crashes or increase the severity of injuries suffered in a crash. Whether the party that designed a road can be held accountable for harm suffered in an accident depends on numerous factors, as discussed in a recent New York opinion issued in a case arising out of a fatal accident. If you lost a loved one in a car crash, it is advisable to confer with a trusted Syracuse car accident lawyer to assess what claims you may be able to assert in pursuit of damages.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the decedent suffered fatal injuries when he was riding as a passenger in the defendant driver’s vehicle. The police report indicated that the deadly accident occurred when the defendant driver, who was intoxicated, struck the curb on an exit ramp, which caused him to lose control of the vehicle, hit a guard rail, and then crash into numerous storefronts. The plaintiff, who was the administrator of the decedent’s estate, commenced claims against the driver and the municipal entities that designed the ramp where the accident occurred. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged the municipal parties negligently planned and designed the ramp, which created a dangerous condition. The municipal entities moved for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed.

Liability for Negligently  Designed Roadways

Under New York law, municipalities owe a duty to the public to keep their streets in a relatively safe condition. In evaluating whether a municipality upholds this duty, the courts respect the planning and decision-making functions of a municipality. As such, the municipalities are granted qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision. Continue Reading ›

New York is a no-fault insurance state. This means, in part, that a person hurt in a collision generally cannot recover damages from the party that caused the collision unless they demonstrate they suffered serious harm. In a recent New York ruling issued in a matter arising out of a collision, the court discussed what constitutes a serious injury and what evidence a plaintiff must offer to prove that such injury occurred. If you were hurt in a collision, it is in your best interest to speak to a skilled Syracuse car accident lawyer to discuss your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff and defendant were involved in a collision in May 2018. The plaintiff suffered injuries to his left knee and shoulder, and spine due to the accident. He underwent surgery on his left should in February 2019 and on his left knee in August 2019. He subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, seeking compensation for his injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to show that he suffered a serious injury as required to proceed to trial pursuant to New York’s no-fault insurance law. The court ultimately denied the motion.

Serious Injuries in Car Accident Cases

The court explained that the New York no-fault insurance law provides, in relevant part, that in any action in which one covered party seeks compensation from another covered party for personal injuries arising out the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, there is no right of recovery for non-economic losses except in cases involving serious injuries. In turn, a serious injury is defined as one that causes a permanent consequential limitation of the use of a body part or organ, a substantial limitation of a bodily system or function, or a medically determined impairment or injury that prevents a person from performing the acts of daily life for at least ninety days during the six months following a collision. Continue Reading ›

Collisions frequently cause back and neck injuries and people hurt in crashes have the right to seek compensation for their harm from the parties that caused the accident via civil claims. A plaintiff must respect a defendant’s right to conduct discovery, though, which may include submitting to a medical examination. If they do not, it may adversely impact their right to recover damages, as illustrated in a recent opinion issued in a car accident case in which a New York court sanctioned the plaintiff for refusing to undergo an examination with the defendant’s expert. If you were injured in a car crash, it is smart to speak to a Syracuse car accident lawyer about your options for pursuing a just outcome.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff sustained injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine and right shoulder in a collision involving a car driven by the plaintiff. He subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, who then removed the matter to federal court. During discovery, the defendant obtained information indicating that the plaintiff suffered similar injuries in a previous accident and directed the plaintiff to appear for a medical examination prior to undergoing surgical repair of his injuries.

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent a discectomy without notifying the defendant or appearing for an examination. The defendant moved for sanctions arguing that the plaintiff engaged in spoliation by undergoing surgery prior to a medical exam. The plaintiff opposed the motion, but the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in favor of granting the motion. The court ultimately adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation and imposed sanctions on the plaintiff. The plaintiff then appealed. Continue Reading ›