New York Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Another teenager from Jackson has been killed after being involved in a serious car crash. The accident involved two vehicles. Several other teens have recently lost their lives in similar circumstances. This accident has also injured two other teens and another driver.

The teenager that died was 17 years old. The deceased, and two other injured teens were all from Jackson Memorial High School and were keen members of the baseball team. These were all inside a 2004 Lincoln when the car was involved in an accident with a Ford Escape.

According to a police report which has been obtained by the Lawyer, the accident happened at around 8:45 PM on Friday.

The students were thought to be traveling from a baseball game which was hosted at Manchester High School. The force of the impact split the car in two explained the police. As the causes of the accident were not clear, the authorities were planning to reconstruct the incident to answer a few questions.

The driver of the car involved in the accident is currently being treated for his injuries in hospital. The teenager that was killed was sitting in the backseat. As he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt he was thrown from the car when is split in two explained the Police.

The officer explains that the other teenage passenger was airlifted to a nearby hospital. On Sunday his condition was still listed as Critical. The passenger in the front of the car was taken to a nearby medical center, however he did not have serious or life threatening injuries.

The extent of the damage caused to the vehicles was more than expected. That’s why many people suspect that the car accident was caused by the drivers traveling at excessive speeds.
Eyewitnesses who saw the accident said that they heard screeching of tires, then a very loud bang. By the time the emergency services had arrived, the rear seat passenger had already died.

The school is very sympathetic with the matter; they have provided counselors to other students to take care of them. Schools in Manhattan and Long Island would do the same.

Continue reading " Teenager from Jackson Dies in Car Crash " »

A man who was seriously injured in a serious car crash in Lancashire is grateful that he is still alive. He is about to visit the Lancashire Constabulary’s Air Support Unit to personally thank the crew which were responsible for saving his life.

The 19 year old driver was involved in a traffic incident. He crashed into a tree while he was riding a motorcycle in October 2010.

Normally in these circumstances the Air Ambulance would be called to transport the patient to hospital, explained a Lawyer. However, the air ambulance was not available at the time. Instead, the fast thinking police decided to use the police helicopter. They used their police helicopter to pick up the patient and send him to the Royal Blackburn Hospital.

The injuries sustained in the accident were very serious. He required treatment for a broken leg, head trauma, and liver injuries. He actually needed five months of treatment before he could be released.

Following the accident the motorcycle rider was unconscious for around eight weeks. His family was relieved when he finally opened his eyes the first time after the accident.

The source has seen a copy of the police report. The rider explained that he remembered everything before the crash. However, he didn’t remember the actual car accident happening or anything immediately before it.

The motorcycle rider has thanked the Air Support unit for saving his life. He said that he believes he would have died if they had to wait for the air ambulance to respond.

He has arranged to meet the police constable and captain who were involved in saving his life. These people were on duty in a helicopter when the accident happened and were able to transfer him to hospital. He will also get to see a tour of the whole unit and have a look inside the helicopter. These accidents are not common in The Bronx and Brooklyn.

The helicopter has taken people to hospital before in certain circumstances. In this case the air ambulance was not available which meant that they needed to use the police helicopter.

Continue reading " Car Crash Victim is saved by Police Air Support " »

A report explains that two best friends have recently been involved in a fatal car accident. This resulted in the deaths of both of these students who recently graduated.

One of the people who died in the crash was a keen skateboarder, and the other was a bull rider. Both people that died were 18 years old and graduated from Plattsmouth high earlier in the month.

The Lawyer who has practiced in NYC and Westchester indicated that the two were driving to collect one of the teen’s younger brother. The car that they were driving in was hit by another car at an intersection between Nebraska Highway 91 and Highway 81.

The school is being very sympathetic with their students. They are providing counselors to all students which helps the friends of the victims.

The school principal explained that both of these kids were very popular and liked by everyone that met them. One of them was a known practical joker. He really enjoyed teasing and pretending to annoy people.

The police are currently investigating the accident. The exact cause of the accident is not currently known.

The accident happened at around 5:15 PM on Saturday. They were driving in a Chevrolet Impala 2003 model. Both the driver and passenger died as a result of the injuries sustained by the accident.

The teenager’s car was hit on the passenger side by another vehicle. A 59 year old was driving this car and was heading down highway 81 on the southbound carriageway. The passenger of the other vehicle suffered injuries which endangered her life. She was airlifted to hospital and was said to be in critical condition.

Both the two in the second car were wearing seatbelts. The teenagers were not, this means that if they wore their seatbelts then they would probably still be alive.

The pair were thought to have a very exciting future ahead of them. The one planned a career in the military, and the other wanted to attend a wedding school. Both were much loved and were said to be good at making other people happier.

Continue reading " 2 Best Friends Involved in Crash " »

A man has lost his life in an accident which also left four other people seriously injured. The accident involved three cars and was a serious car accident, explains a Lawyer.

The 51 year old man was killed at the scene of the accident before the emergency services could arrive. The other four people were seriously injured and needed medical treatment in hospital. The accident happened during Sunday afternoon.

The source who is from Queens and Staten Island reads from the report which says the accident occurred close to Woodlot Park. This accident forced police officers to shut down New Road from Wheeler to Route 1 for the rest of the afternoon.

The victims of the accident were trapped inside their vehicles. The rescue teams needed to work for 45 minutes to cut the roofs off the cars and remove the people. The four people who were still alive were taken straight to Robert Wood Johnson university Hospital. Some of these people were considered to be in a critical condition.

Two young children were involved in the accident. Both the parent and the children were taken to the university hospital for treatment. The family were treated and released on Sunday. The police said that it’s fortunate the children were in car seats and strapped securely in the car. If they weren’t strapped in then the accident could have been much worse.

The police report that one driver was traveling along New Road in an eastbound direction. Eye witnesses have explained that the driver was traveling faster than he should have been and overtaking many vehicles. When he attempted to return to his lane he hit another car.

The impact caused the cars to be pushed off the road and into a hydrant; tree and pole at the side of the road. The cars slid sideways along the road which then crashed into several other vehicles on the way.

The police are currently still investigating the cause of the crash, the exact cause of the accident remains unknown. The accident required the attention of the Fire department, police, Monmouth first aid crew and the Medical Examiner’s Office.

Continue reading " Crash Kills Man from South Brunswick " »

Maryann Agudio and an eight-year-old child, Janiece Robinson was driving Union Boulevard in Suffolk County when a vehicle driven by Warner Cooley hit them. The car was under Marcia Cooley’s name. Cases were filed against Mr. Cooley and Ms. Cooley. It was responded by a counter claim saying that it was Ms. Agudio, who was at fault in the accident. Ms. Agudio petitioned the court seeking a summary judgment saying that she was liable and that the eight-year-old Janiece Robinson did not sustain a serious injury in the context of insurance law.

Ms. Agudio had submitted to the court the transcripts of the claims, the counter claims and the answers. She also submitted a copy of the reports for the independent orthopedic examination performed on Janiece Robinson. The examination was done by Robert Israel M.D. on September 25, 2009. With her counsel, Janiece Robinson did not agree with the petition filed by Ms. Agudio. They asked for the dismissal of the case saying that Janiece did not sustain serious injuries as required by insurance law.

For a summary judgment to be granted the claimant must be able to show that all issues have been met and eliminated. There should be no issues that are presented that are deemed as needed to be decided on in a trail. With regard to the liability of Ms. Agudio, the child’s grandmother, she recounted the incident on April 5, 2004 at about 2:30 or 3:00 in the afternoon. She said that aside from Janiece her grandson, Michael Robinson, was also in the passenger seat. She stopped her vehicle at a red traffic light at the intersection of Carleton Avenue with Union Boulevard. This is the time that she noticed Mr. Cooley’s vehicle. A few seconds after, she said that Mr. Cooley’s car had struck the rear of her car. This had caused her vehicle to jolt forward. She claims that the light had not changed, it was still red. After they were hit, she pulled over at Union Boulevard and checked on her grandchildren. He approached the other car, and she was told by Mr. Cooley that he was in a hurry to pick up his son at school.

Janiece testified that she was sleeping when the accident happened. Beside her was her cousin who was one or two years old. She was jolted awake when the car was hit. This was also the time that she realized that there was a car accident.

In Mr. Cooley’s testimony, he said that he was driving on Carleton Avenue in a southbound direction. He was behind Ms. Agudio’s vehicle. He was unsure if the car was moving when he saw it or stopped, but he noticed that the traffic light was red so stopped behind the other car. He said that when the light turned green Ms. Agudio had let other vehicles pass her and the light turned red again and they remained stopped. When the light turned green, the next thing that he remembers was that she was going out of the car, and he did too. He said he asked if she was okay. He does not remember if Ms. Agudio told him that there was contact with their vehicles, but he insists there wasn’t. He also testified that he did not see anyone else inside the vehicle with her. They then went their own way without notifying the police. He also stated he did not notice any damage in the rear of her vehicle or the front of his car. He also believes that when he went to Allstate for repairs, he was given estimates for damages prior to the incident.

For the injuries, both submitted reports of Robert Israel M.D. about his examination of the infant. A serious injury defined by the insurance law, “means a personal injury which results in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; a fracture; loss of a fetus; permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment.” Significant meaning that their normal activities have been impaired. They were not able to do it.

In the testimonies, it appeared that Janiece had suffered back pains and head pains after the accident. Her mother Denise Robinson also said that she was not able to join gym for one month because of the pain in her back. She said all her activities were normal six months after the accident. This was the same for Ms. Agudio, though there was also evidence presented that she may have had the injuries prior to the accident. This was because she had been in another vehicle accident before. As for the infant, the doctor had said that it had its full range of motion, and it was normal. Both issues were not proven as have been covered as there are still questions as to the liability of Mr. Cooley, and it cannot be ascertained that the children did or did not suffer any serious injury just from the preliminary evidence presented. This cannot be ignored. Further examination and evidence need to be presented to determine it. For Mr. Cooley’s liability, there is his claim that the traffic light changed and quickly changed back. It may also be deemed that it was Ms. Agudio, fault that they got into the accident if the traffic light had turned green, and she did not move the car. That means that there is a shared negligence that may need to be decided by a trial. This has to be verified as well as the repair done to his vehicle after the incident happened. There are questions that exist, which need a trial. The petition for summary judgment was denied. Courts in Long Island and Manhattan have taken note.

Continue reading " Maryann Agudio and an eight-year-old child, Janiece Robinson was driving Union Boulevard in Suffolk County " »

Drivers of emergency vehicles are afforded some sort of immunity from vehicular accidents that result to personal injuries. Emergency vehicles include ambulances and police cars are more prone to car crashes when the drivers are responding to calls of emergency from dispatchers and most of the time, serious injuries arise from these as they are more likely to involve high-speed collisions. Our expert explains that an emergency vehicle driver who gets figured in a car crash is governed under the vehicular and traffic laws 1104, wherein his actions must be qualified and that he must not be found to be more than negligent to be able to be exempted from being liable to his victim's injuries.

This is an example of a car accident case involving a police car and another vehicle as reviewed by one of our top Attorneys. On February 4, 2011, the Milim couple, Steven and Susan (Plaintiffs), was stopped along an intersection in Suffolk County behind two vehicles, while traveling northbound and waiting for the red traffic light to change. Finally, at the turn of the green light, the two cars moved forward and just as Steven Milim was about to pull up, a spinning police car slammed onto his left side which made their SUV spin 360 degrees.

According to Steven, the impact was so great that it could be described as something exploding inside the car. In his testimony prior to the trial, Steven Milim also claimed that he did not see the car because he kept his eyes on the road ahead, anticipating the traffic light to turn to green. He only came to realize that the police car was going to slam against their car when his wife, Susan motioned for him to watch out for the incoming spinning police vehicle. Moreover, Steven said that it was a cold, wet day for driving. In Susan Milim's testimony, she stated that the police car was out of control spinning at an estimated speed of about 70 mph.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on account of the defendants' libability for injuries that they sustained claimed that the driver was negligent. To answer the claim, the Defendants, Roger Chin and Suffolk County Police Department filed a motion to reverse the Plaintiffs' claim and stated that they were injured because of Steven Milim's negligence and carelessness. Then, the Plaintiffs' filed another motion to counter the Defendants' claims against Steven Milim's negligence and insisted that he acted prudently and was not the one responsible for the collision. The Defendants further filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint based on the "Reckless Disregard Standard", which according to his counsel, exempts him from being liable for the injuries that the Plaintiffs sustained.

"Reckless Disregard Standard" applies to all emergency drivers who act to do something while being aware of the hazard of the action and ignoring any possibility of causing injuries or risking other people's lives. It does not imply that Roger Chin intended to cause harm but it is a more severe intent than to be ordinarily negligent. The Plaintiffs must prove that Roger Chin acted in with reckless disregard for their lives when he did not slow down and collided with their vehicle in that Suffolk intersection. However, if it was found that Roger Chin acted prudently and thought about other people's safety before his while responding to an emergency, then he may be excused from being liable to injuries caused by suddenly stopping, disregarding stop signals, going beyond the speed limit and violating traffic directions and turning. According to our source, this law is a controversial because it permits emergency vehicle drivers to disregard rules without thinking about other people's welfare since they will be protected by the law.

Our study further states that several other witnesses reported what they have seen from the accident. Paula Rizzo claimed that she had witnessed the accident and that it was sunny and the road condition was dry. She also stated that she was driving on the southbound lane and she came to a stop when the traffic light on her lane turned red. While she was stopped and waiting for the traffic light to change, she noticed the police vehicle from her rearview mirror and that it was traveling so fast she noticed it because of the gunning engine that sounded like a race car. She saw the car and thought that it was going too fast and estimated that it was running at 45-50 mph, it passed to her right and avoided a vehicle turning left from the intersection until it collided with the Milim's SUV. Rizzo also said she didn't hear any screeching brakes and that the Plaintiff's car was stopped and was also about to move. She also stated that the police car didn't have its emergency lights or siren on when it crossed the intersection.

Another witness, Darren Hughes testified that he has seen the accident while he was driving northbound. He testified that the police car was coming very fast and was "flying". He stated that the police car collided with the car behind him and that the impact was so tremendous that it sent the SUV flying backwards and spinning a full 360. Furthermore, he said that the weather during the time was mild with some snow melting but did not notice if the road was wet or slippery. He also said that the police car did not have its light on and the driver did not certainly slow down when he approached the intersection. Gay Bullock, another witness whose car was behind the Plaintiffs when the accident happened testified that the police car did not have siren, lights and did not honk to announce its approach.

Finally, Roger Chin, the defendant gave his testimony and he stated that he has been in service as a policeman in Suffolk County Police Department for 11 years and that during the time of the accident he was assigned in the COPE unit where he wasn't assigned to a specific area but was on duty to receive emergency calls via the radio. He said that he did not recall accepting an emergency call and the only thing that he remembered was waking up in the Emergency Room. He had no recollection of the incident and did not know if he used his service vehicle's siren. He also failed to account the weather condition during that time and he reckoned that the speed limit in that area where he crashed was 30 mph. To support his testimony, Sgt. Kevin McKeon stated in his affidavit that there was a report of robbery in a nearby store and Roger Chin, the Defendant, responded to that emergency. By doing so, the Defendant may be entitled to the benefits of the law protecting him from any litigation that may arise from car accidents while responding to an emergency. The Defendants and their counsel claimed that Chin was responding to a police call concerning a robbery in progress and that the Plaintiffs did not submit an affidavit questioning this fact. Therefore, he may be afforded the benefits of the vehicle and traffic law 1104. This is the case in Long Island and Manhattan.

Following the parties' and the witnesses' accounts, it was concluded that the Milim SUV was not moving when it was hit by Roger Chin's service vehicle, in addition, it has also been revealed that Roger Chin did not turn on his emergency lights or siren before approaching the intersection and while responding to the robbery. Our Attorney explains that the Defendant must prove that he did not cause the emergency and he must also provide legitimate excuses for going over the speed limit and hitting the Plaintiffs' SUV. However, Chin, Suffolk County Police Department and their counsel failed to submit the required evidences to substantiate this and consequently, were unable to convince the court that the accident was not Roger Chin's fault, thus, their claims against Steven Milim's negligence was dismissed. Also, the motion of the Plaintiffs rebutting the issue of Steven Milim's negligence in driving was granted. Furthermore, the Defendants' did not submit proof to maintain that Chin did not act with "Reckless Disregard" for other people's safety, thus their motion for summary judgment on account of the "Reckless Disregard Standard" was dismissed.

Accordingly, as explained by our expert, the Plaintiffs were able to provide evidences that Roger Chin acted indifferently during the time of the accident and proceeded to drive carelessly, which caused the Plaintiffs to sustain injuries. Although it was apparent that as an emergency driver, Roger Chin was protected by the law, he must have been able to explain the reason for his speed as he was approaching the intersection, he must have thought about whether he was putting the life of civilians and their property in danger, he must have driven with cautioned and signaled on his approach to the intersection and must have slowed down when noticed the possibility of collision, an dhe must not have created the emergency situation. All of these were not demonstrated or provided by the Defendants and their counsel, therefore, the Court denied their second motion for summary judgment.

Then the Plaintiffs asked to be compensated for loss of wages since Steven Milim was a medical doctor and employed an economist or an expert to estimate the cost of his losses. The Defendants sought an order to make the Plaintiffs submit all the necessary documents that disclosed their losses from payments of medical bills and insurance contracts. However, the Defendant's counsel claims that the information on the cost of his lost wages was not provided prior to the Notice for Discovery and that they are not liable for it. However, the Court ruled that the Plaintiffs provided all the information, documents, reports and the discovery demands of the Defendants and that they are liable to compensate the Milims for the costs that they incurred during the ordeal.

Continue reading " Drivers of emergency vehicles are afforded some sort of immunity " »

A car accident involving six vehicles on Route 101 is thought to of been caused by a medical condition of one of the drivers. The car accident happened on Saturday morning. The lady suffered from her illness which quickly developed into a pretty serious six car pileup according to police.

There were no fatalities caused by the crash and nobody was seriously injured as a result of the accident. Police said that it’s lucky that this accident wasn’t much more serious than it actually was.

Police have also explained that the woman will not face any criminal charges because of the accident. The accident was not her fault, and she didn’t know that she would cause the accident if she drove. The police still haven’t released the name of the woman, but it’s unlikely this information will ever be passed into the public domain.

The woman was travelling eastbound along Route 101 when she suffered from a medical complication. The complication was caused by a pre-existing medical condition.

This complication caused her to lose control of her car. This then hit a number of other vehicles at an intersection along Route 101. A few of the vehicles which were involved in the accident were heavily damaged by the crash. Some of the cars were even pushed over the center of the road into the westbound carriage way. It’s fortunate that the accident wasn’t more serious.

The woman was sent to hospital by ambulance. She received treatment at Catholic Medical Center which is in Manchester. She is currently being evaluated by medical professionals to look at what can be done to prevent the same thing affecting her in the future.
Some of the other drivers and passengers required medical attention. However, the only injuries sustained were minor and not life threatening. This meant that they could be discharged from hospital very quickly. Accidents like this one are common in Nassau and Suffolk counties.

The cause of the accident has been identified by police, and the woman is receiving medical treatment. There are unlikely to be any charges filed against anyone because of this crash.

Continue reading " Ill Woman Causes Crash involving 6 Cars " »

Most of the college aged students will do anything they can to make the roster so that they can play football. It’s such an important thing for many high school students to do. One student wanted it so badly that he died trying. Now, his family is blaming the NCAA. The family wants the NCAA to pay damages for tragically cutting his life short.

Early in 2010 the student collapsed as a result of an early morning workout. It’s thought that he collapsed because of over exerting himself when working out. Six hours after collapsing he was pronounced dead by doctors. This was a severe blow to the family that had lost their much loved and popular son.

The family of the deceased believes that it would have been possible to prevent the death if the practices used were correct. The family has alleged that the teenager did not have the necessary medical supervision. The family has filed wrongful death lawsuits against the head coach, members of football staff, medical staff, the University of Mississippi and the NCAA. This is a major headache for the NCAA who thrive on having a good reputation.

The family is very concerned that the same thing could happen to another family. The family also believe that this has happened many more times in the past. Students are desperate to get on the roster and will do anything to get there.

It’s said that there have been 21 NCAA footballers who have died since 2000. The family argue that nobody should die. The NCAA should be informing schools about what they need to do to protect their students.

Most college students are desperate to get onto the football team. It marks a huge achievement and earns them a lot of respect among their peers. Even so, there’s no reason why anyone has to die when they are trying to become a footballer in college. If schools know how to take care of their football playing students better then this will make playing the sport much safer.

Continue reading " 21st Players Death + Wrongful Death Lawsuit = #1 Problem For NCAA " »

Kathleen Stolarz and her husband were involved in a two-car auto accident caused by a bus on Route 6 in Woodbury, New York. This happened on February 18, 1989. A source found out that the vehicle that they were using was a company car rented by her employer Blue Cross/ Blue Shield. Blue Cross/ Blue Shield is a New Jersey company, and the car is registered in New Jersey. The car was insured by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company. The policy given to Blue Cross/ Blue Shield was set to be consistent with the New Jersey law. Mr. and Mrs. Stolarz often garaged the vehicle at their home in Monroe, New York, which is just a few miles from the New Jersey border.

The insurance company of the other vehicle paid Mrs. Stolarz $20,000, which is the liability limit of the insured’s policy. This was disputed by Allstate Insurance Company, from whom the Stolarz’s got their personal car's insurance from. They based their dispute from the underinsurance coverage of that policy. Mr. and Mrs. Stolarz demanded for arbitration. A source said, Allstate Insurance Company answered by filing for a special proceeding with the Supreme Court. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company also disputed the amount that is payable and joined the proceeding to get a decision as to the obligations of the parties. Allstate Insurance Company settled with Mr. and Mrs. Stolarz and was not part of the appeal anymore.

New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company argued that in the insurance policy’s terms and the New Jersey law, they were entitled to offset the $20,000 which was given by the other driver to Mr. and Mrs. Stolarz from the $35,000 limit that was in the policy. Mr. and Mrs. Stolarz, said by a rep, countered this with the New York law offset clauses are void, and they should get the full amount. The court determined that with the conflict between the New Jersey law and New York law in this case, New York law should be the one to be followed with these injuries.

The determination that was applied by the trial court was that in cases where there is a conflict between the laws is based on the parties involved, where the car accident happened and the government’s interest. In this case, the parties that affected lives in New York, the vehicle is normally parked housed in New York, and the accident happened in New York. The State of New York has a bigger interest in getting the issue resolved. According to police, this is normally used for issues regarding jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals decision was to look at where the contract was set and the parties to the contract. In the insurance policy, Mr. and Mrs. Stolarz were not the once who paid for it, nor were they the ones who got it. The insurance was between Blue Cross/ Blue Shield, a New Jersey Company and New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company basing it on previous decisions with regard to contracts. They, therefore, concluded that only $15,000 of the $35,000 is due to Mr. and Mrs. Stolarz. Police in Nassau and Westchester took note.

Continue reading " Kathleen Stolarz and her husband were involved in a two-car auto accident " »

Irving Cohen was driving his vehicle June 8, 1974 when the vehicle, while he was trying to parallel park, and after he placed it on reverse, shot backwards at a high speed and even with him stepping on the brake did not stop. It moved backwards in an arc around 70 feet to the east side of the street, through an open space on that side. It then jumped the curb, and only stopped when it hit a building’s wall. Astor Cover was walking on that side of the street and was crushed against the wall by the speeding car. This accident cost him a leg and the other leg had required a brace. A Lawyer found out that even with a prosthesis and a brace, he could only stand if he had canes to help him.

Mr. Cover initially filed a case against Mr. Cohen only. After the death of Mr. Cohen, he added General Motors, the manufacturer of the vehicle and Kinney Motors the dealer to the complaint. Instead of Mr. Cohen, it was changed to claim from Mrs. Cohen, who was acting as the administratrix of Mr. Cohen’s estate. A source said this was because they got information that the car was delivered to Mr. Cohen brand new by Kinney Motors on December 22, 1972. It had only been driven around 12, 000 miles, since he got it and should have been working properly.

A two-part trial had a jury decide four issues. The first is whether Mr. Cohen was negligent in his driving, and it was the immediate cause of the accident. Second is if General Motors was negligent and if that negligence also directly contributed t the accident. The third is the throttle return spring of the Chevrolet was defective and was it already defective when it was taken from General Motors. The last is if Chevrolet is reasonably dangerous because of the defect in the spring and did that defect caused the accident. The last question included an instruction that says, “If your answer is 'yes' then you must also find as against Kinney Motors as the seller (of the vehicle) on this issue of strict liability." A policeman said that the jury’s response was, in degrees of fault, was that Mr. Cohen is 2% liable, General Motors 94% and Kinney Motors 4%, and damages were calculated in favor of Astor Cover at $6,000,000 and in favor of Pearl Cover, on her request for relief, at $2,000,000. The trial judged moved the matter of negligence against Mr. Cohen to the jury, along with the issue if liability against Kinney Motors. The issue of Mr. Cohen against General Motors with regard to negligence, and liability was also moved to the jury. He also granted Mr. Kinney’s motion for damages. He also granted General Motors motions to lower the amount demanded from $3,000,000 to $1,000,000 but denied the motion for a new trial.

General Motors filed an appeal with the Appellate division in The Bronx and Brooklyn regarding the part of Mr. Cover. The liability of Kinney Motors will be dependent on the results of whether General Motors was negligent and liable. According to a source, the appeal of General Motors questions correctness of the evidence is introduced. They asked about a Federal motor vehicle safety standards given as evidence was after the vehicle was already manufactured. They queried about the throttle spring removed from Mr. Cohen’s vehicle because it was done about fifteen months after the accident. The statement given by Mr. Cohen after the accident was also part of the appeal. Lastly, a technical service bulletin with respect to the carburetor spring of the 1973 Chevrolet sent to its dealers by General Motors under date of January 22, 1974.

The Appellate Division decision was that the entering of the Federal motor vehicle safety standard was an error. The throttle spring and Mr. Cohen’s statement presented to the jury was also an error. On the matter of the bulletin though, they said that it was admissible as it is part of the negligence as a failure to warn. The court granted a new trial for Kinney Motors and General Motors.

Continue reading " Irving Cohen was driving his vehicle June 8, 1974 " »

A multiple car accident caused Joel R. Heiney, James Pattillo and Carl Dorfman to cross. The accident happened August 8 on the Belt Parkway in Brooklyn. A Lawyer said that from records what took place started with Mr. Pattillo. Mr. Pattillo was moving east on the left-hand lane of the Parkway. Mr. Dorfman and Mr. Heiney were travelling westbound, separately. It is still uncertain why, but Mr. Pattillo’s car suddenly swerved to the left and crossed the median line separating the eastbound and westbound lanes. Once on the westbound lane still going east he first hit a taxicab, next was Mr. Heiney’s vehicle. After Mr. Pattillo’s car hit Mr. Heiney’s, Mr. Heiney’s car was involved with Mr. Dorfman’s vehicle in a second collision.

Mr. Heiney and his wife started the proceedings for an instant action against Mr. Pattillo and Mr. Dorfman, immediately after the accident. In their petition, they said that Mr. Pattillo was negligent as he caused his vehicle to cross into oncoming lanes of traffic. For Mr. Dorfman, their case was that he did not maintain a safe distance from their vehicle that would have allowed him to avoid hitting them. The defendants, Mr. Pattillo and Mr. Dorfman, introduced claims against each other.

The courts in The Bronx and mainly in Brooklyn had a hearing in the issue of liability only. The witnesses were Mr. Heiney and his wife, Mr. Pattillo, Mr. Dorfman, a witness who was not involved and a police officer who arrived at the scene a few minutes after it happened. In Mr. Heiney’s testimony, he said that he was moving towards the center of the westbound lane when he noticed a commotion to his left. He saw Mr. Pattillo’s vehicle swiping the rear of a taxi. This was in the left hand lane and was about a car and a half ahead of him. In a few seconds, Mr. Pattillo’s car hit the left side of his vehicle. He was still moving in the center lane when Mr. Dorfman’s vehicle hit his car from behind, and that is where he lost control of his vehicle. The car stopped at the right side of the road. According to a source, the witness who was not involved named Phillip Stein supported Mr. Heiney’s testimony. He was travelling on the eastbound lane where he noticed Mr. Pattillo’s vehicle weaving from side to side in the left-hand side of the eastbound lane and suddenly crossed to the westbound lane. He hit the taxicab, Mr. Heiney’s car, and then Mr. Heiney’s car was hit by Mr. Dorfman’s. Mr. Stein clearly said that when Mr. Pattillo’s vehicle veered to outside the eastbound lane, there were no other vehicles, and it had not been in contact with another vehicle.

Mr. Pattillo’s testimony, on the other hand, was that he was trying to get to the right-hand lane because he wanted to exit at Flatbush Avenue. He said that there was another vehicle in the center lane, so he increased his speed a little to be able to pass it. While passing the other car, allegedly, the driver of the other vehicle sounded his horn, so he leaned to check if he knew the driver. A source mentioned that Mr. Pattillo said this was when the other vehicle that was in the middle lane moved to the left and hit his car. He said this is what caused him to lose control of his vehicle. He said that he remembers that he hit another car, but he does not remember anything after. He also refutes the statement that he was already swerving before the accident.

Mr. Dorfman’s testimony was the shortest, as he said that he only remembers passing the Flatbush exit, and that he was in the right hand of the westbound lane. He also just remembers things from after the accident when his vehicle was already stopped at the right shoulder of the westbound road.

A new trial was granted for this case because of certain reasons, which included that introduction of a statement made by Mr. Pattillo. Although it was entered by Mr. Dorfman, it never should have been admitted. It was the motor vehicle accident report that was written by Mr. Pattillo more than three months after the accident. It said, "Was sideswiped, lost control of the car. Was knocked unconscious. Don't know anything about other vehicles that was (SiC) in accident." It would have been barred because it was a self-serving report if Mr. Pattillo entered it into evidence, but the court says it should have been barred regardless as this was introduced after Mr. Pattillo has already testified.

From information gotten by a reporter, there was also an instance in the cross-examination of Mr. Stein that was cited by the Appellate Court as a reason to set another trial. This was on redirect, Mr. Heiney’s counsel returned to the question why Mr. Stein did not try to pass the allegedly swerving Mr. Pattillo. The transcript show:

"Q. Why didn't why didn't you pass this car?
"A. Well, because I'm programmed where
"Q. Not
"MR. SHAPIRO: * I object he's programmed his program, Judge.
"MR. WOOSTER: ** I object
"Q. Were you
"THE COURT: Did you bring the bagels home safe that night? All right, I'll let him he was programmed for bringing the bagels home. His JAP was waiting for him. You know what a JAP is, don't you?
"THE WITNESS: Of course. Someone who lives in Japan.
"THE COURT: All right. Sundown, quick, let's get down to, here" (emphasis supplied).

The Appellate Court does not even need to explain that the remark by the court was inappropriate. These are not reasons to reverse the decision. Mr. Stein was the only disinterested party that testified. His testimony directly contradicts the statement of one of the defendants. The comment of the court with the reinforcement of Mr. Pattillo’s testimony does not necessarily mean the Mr. Stein’s credibility was undermined in the case, but it requires a new trial because to finish the case Mr. Stein’s statement is crucial. The court stated as well that with regard to the entering of parts of the two police accident reports which had diagrams claiming to represent the position of the parties' vehicles at the conclusion of the accident was not incorrect as this was based on what he saw on the scene and not from testimonies. It is also noted that the testimonies in the trial have supported the court’s decision that Mr. Dorfman only reacted to the emergency.

Like with any other case there are complications that may arise from a simple petition because of the misdeeds of some of the parties. These unforeseen situations are not new to Lawyers. Even if the issue that arises is not an issue about auto accidents, they are able to deal with it to make sure your interest is protected.

Continue reading " A multiple vehicle accident caused Joel R. Heiney, James Pattillo and Carl Dorfman to cross. " »