Serving Clients Throughout Upstate New York with Multiple Convenient Locations Syracuse | Oneida | Watertown | New Hartford | Binghamton | Cortland | Rochester | Oswego | Albany | Buffalo

We’ve been looking in recent posts at the issue of vicarious liability in the context of motor vehicle accidents involving employees and independent contractors. Last time, we looked particularly at the foreseeability and scope of employment requirements. As we noted, the key question with scope of employment is whether the employee was doing the employer’s work at the time of the accident.

There are a variety of factors courts consider when determining whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment. These factors include, first of all, the time, place and location of the act. In the context of a motor vehicle crash, the court would be looking for where and when the crash occurred. Did it occur on the employer’s premises or on a job site? Did the crash occur before, during or after working hours? These and other such questions are important to consider. 

Another factor is the actual relationship between the employer and employee and how this relates to the employee’s work duties. If the worker’s job description or contract doesn’t include certain activities, but is an established agreement that the employee engages in those activities, the latter may be considered within the scope of employment for purposes of vicarious liability. In cases where the employee did not perform his or her duties as directed or as they are ordinarily performed, courts will also consider the extent of the departure and whether any wrongdoing that caused injury could have been reasonably anticipated by the employer.

In a previous post, we mentioned that third party liability is an important issue to explore in motor vehicle accident cases where there may have been other parties who contributed to the accident other than the individuals directly involved in the crash.

The possibility of pursuing such third-party liability really depends on the circumstances of the case, and it is important to work with an experienced attorney who can help identify all potentially liable parties and hold them accountable. One possibility for third party liability is vicarious liability, which involves holding employers liable for the wrongdoing of their employees.  

Under New York Law, an employer is generally liable for the actions of an employee as long as the employee was acting within the scope of employment. Employers are generally not going to be liable for the wrongful actions of independent contractors since they do not exercise as much control over their actions. In New York, the courts will determine whether an employment relationship exists on the basis of whether one party maintains general supervisory powers the other. If the supervision only amounts to incidental control, there is no employment relationship that may give rise to vicarious liability.

It may seem as though you have an obvious, “slam dunk” case when you are affected by a medical mistake, but even if you bring legal action against a doctor, institution or both, you will have to prove your case. And the doctor and/or institution will build their own defense to the case.

With that in mind, it is imperative to understand what kind of defense tactics the doctor and/or institution will utilize in a medical malpractice case.

First of all, every case is different, and every state is different. Understanding how the medical malpractice laws apply in your state is critical to building your case — and to prepare for the defense.

A new report released in the journal BMJ concludes two very frightening aspects of medical errors. The first is that there may be many more medical errors that actually occur then we are aware of. And the second is that the number of medical errors that occur in the United States ranks them as the third leading cause of death in the U.S. behind only heart disease and cancer.

The report went into a little more detail. The researchers estimated that more than 251,000 deaths per year in the U.S. are related to medical errors. That far exceeds an oft-cited study from 1999 which estimated that somewhere between 44,000-98,000 people die every year as a result of a medical error. Subsequent studies, though, have shown increasing predictions for the number of deaths related to medical errors.

The report also criticized death certificates because they don’t ask for enough data — and that, researchers believe, may be leading to fewer medical errors being reported than are actually occurring.

Last time, we began looking at a case in which a Georgia man is suing a teen he accuses of using Snapchat immediately prior to the accident. The man—who suffered a traumatic brain injury—is also suing Snapchat. As we noted, the teen and her friends say the man actually pulled into their lane, not giving her enough time to stop.

For its part, Snapchat denies that it encourages its users to use the app while driving, and that it displays warnings to users to not use the program while operating a motor vehicle.  Police have, so far, chosen not to cite the teen for speeding partly because of conflicting accounts from her passengers about the speed of the vehicle. Police have said that the man may also have committed a moving violation by failing to signal before changing lanes. 

The case is an interesting one not only from the standpoint of social medial use and distracted driving, but also with respect to the issue of negligence in personal injury cases. First of all, there is the issue of comparative negligence, if both parties are found to be partially at fault. Then there is the issue of third party negligence for Snapchat.

Some of our readers, perhaps many, have heard of the social media platform called Snapchat. For those who haven’t, Snapchat is an image messaging application that allows users to take videos and pictures which are live for only a matter of seconds before they disappear. The app doesn’t support saving received messages, but it is possible to capture screenshots of the images.

Snapchat has been criticized for encouraging people to send inappropriate content without repercussion. Now, it seems, the company is being sued for encouraging distracted driving. 

A Georgia man who was struck by a teenager using the program is accusing the company of negligence. The accident apparently occurred when the 18-year-old’s vehicle was travelling at over 100 miles per hour—specifically 107 m.p.h., according to accident reconstruction specialists. The teen apparently had three friends in her vehicle at the time of the crash. He claims she had been using a Snapchat feature which allows users to clock the speed of vehicles in an attempt to push her vehicle to higher speeds. As a result of the crash, the man apparently suffered a traumatic brain injury.

Last time, we spoke briefly about the potentially severe long-term consequences of traumatic brain injury. As we noted, brain injury can cause major changes in a victim’s life, impacting everything from work to family to recreation. Seeking appropriate damages for these losses is a critical aspect of personal injury litigation, and an experienced attorney will be able to increase a victim’s chances of maximizing his or her damages award.

The damages that may be available in brain injury cases fall into several general categories. One of these is compensatory damages, which encompasses things like medical costs, lost wages or income, and other damages that can be readily monetized. Another important category of damages in brain injury cases is non-economic damages. This includes damages that cannot be readily monetized, such as pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of independence, and other such losses. 

As important as economic damages are in brain injury cases—and medical bills can be significant and ongoing—noneconomic damages can be particularly important to help ensure a brain injury victim is adequately compensated. This is especially true in cases where the victim may not have had a very significant income.

Brain injury can have a lot of long-term consequences, depending on the severity of the injury and the victim’s recovery. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, brain injury can cause long-term changes in cognition, sensation, language, and emotion, and can increase the chances of developing epilepsy, Alzheimer’s disease, Parksinson’s disease and other brain disorders.

According to a recent study, brain injury may also cause sleep problems. The study found that the majority of those who suffered a traumatic brain injury experienced long-term sleep disturbances, yet were unaware of sleep disturbance. These findings were found to be true regardless of the severity of the injury. 

The study is interesting not only from the perspective of public health and epidemiology, but also from the standpoint of personal injury liability. Serious automobile accidents often result in traumatic brain injuries, which leave the crash victims with long-term consequences such as those mentioned above. The full impact of brain injury on a crash victim’s life can be enormous, affecting a crash victim’s financial situation, business opportunities, family life, recreational activities, and general enjoyment of life. Not to mention the enormous medical costs that can be involved in brain injury situations.

Distracted driving is a serious problem wherever you go nowadays. The widespread use of mobile devices has made it all too easy for even otherwise responsible drivers to put both themselves and other motorists at risk. States take a variety of approaches to the problem of distracted driving, some stricter than others.

Here in New York, the legislature has banned both texting and the use of handheld devices for all drivers. These are both primary laws, meaning that law enforcement is able to make citations for the offenses without there have been other offenses. Such laws may be helpful in the battle against distracted driving, but they are inherently limited, and must be supplemented with other efforts, including public education on the dangerous of distracted driving. 

One of the emerging possibilities in fighting distracted driving is the use of so-called “textalyzer” phone scanners, which are able to tell law enforcement whether a driver was texting at the time of an accident. Lawmakers in New York are currently considering legislation which would make New York the first state where police are using the technology. Privacy concerns remain about the proposal, but supporters say the scanners would not allow officers to have access to motorists’ personal information.

Last time, we began discussing the federal hours of service regulations, which are largely intended to address the problem of fatigued driving among commercial vehicle operators. The rules, no doubt, do help to ensure that truck drivers are adequately rested while on the roadway, but there has been a fair amount of wrangling over the rules.

The most recent change with the rules took place in 2014 when Congress passed a bill which suspended enforcement of requirements for the 34-hour restart rule. The previous rule required truckers to take their rest breaks at a certain period of two consecutive nights, but that rule was suspended at the urging of the industry so that its effectiveness could be investigated. It remains to be seen whether it will be reinstated.

The trucking industry has been successful in initiating changes not only in the hours of service rules, but also with size and weight limits and other safety standards. These changes, as has been pointed out, have not been good for the cause of highway safety.

Contact Information