New York Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Two construction and repair crewmen from the water district were riding in the car of a co-worker on their way to work when their car was hit in the rear end by a truck driven by an employee of an iron works company.

Both the Bronx crewmen were injured. The other crewman, the one sitting in the back sustained spinal injury from the force of the impact of the collision. His spinal injury consisted of bulging discs in the cervical spine and in the lumbar spine. Because of these injuries, he suffered painful muscle spasms, migraine headaches and numbness in the right arm and shoulder. He was treated in the hospital and was confined to bed for six weeks following the accident. After the confinement, the crewman could not return to his regular job as repair crewman because he could not lift materials. He had difficulty bending down and he could not sit or stand for long periods of time.

Both the crewmen filed a suit in damages against the two drivers of the motor vehicles involved in the car accident. They both claimed compensation for damages under the Insurance Law for the spinal injuries and fractures they sustained as a result of the accident. The driver from the iron works company filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the injuries sustained by the crewmen were not serious injuries and so they are not compensable injuries. The L.I. crewman was examined by independent physicians but the physicians examined the crewmen two years after the accident.

A serious injury is one which brings about loss of life or loss of a limb, substantial disfigurement; loss of a fetus or loss of the use of an organ or system. If the injury is not permanent, it should prevent the injured person from performing his usual and customary activities for ninety to one hundred eight days after the accident.

Here the crewman did not allege that he permanently lost the use of any body part. He did prove that the injury he sustained in the accident limited his physical activity. He was not able to do the customary activities or perform the regular work he used to perform prior to the accident. He alleged that his neck and back had limited range of motion after the accident.
The finding of loss of range of motion in the cervical spine and lumbar spine cannot be based on the mere complaints of the crewman. There must be objective medical tests and diagnostic methods used to arrive at the findings of loss of range of motion.

The fact of having limited use of the spine and the fact of the loss of range of motion are both issues of fact which must be proven. There must be documentation by medical professionals who will attach the results of medical tests, x-rays, CT Scans or MRI scans on which they will base their opinions.

The independent physicians who examined the crewman one year after the accident based their opinions on the MRI and CT Scans of the crewman taken at or around the time of the accident. They themselves did not subject the crewman to MRIs or CT Scans. The independent physicians did not even mention in their report that they conducted range of motion tests themselves. They based their own report on the same range of motion tests conducted at or around the time of the accident. The reports of the attending physicians of the crewman stated that he had significant loss of range of motion in his cervical and lumbar spine.
Thus, the defendant iron works company failed to submit admissible and credible proof on its motion alleging that the crewman did not sustain serious injury. The case is remanded for trial to determine the issue of liability for the serious injury.

Continue reading "Iron Works Company in Traffic Accident" »

A father died as a result of a vehicular accident. His surviving spouse and their two children filed a case for wrongful death against the owners of the vehicle that collided with the father’s car. After the litigation, the owners of the vehicle paid a sum of $182, 717.00 in damages.
By the time that the wrongful death suit was terminated, the surviving spouse had also died. The owners of the vehicles then filed this action to ask the court to determine who should receive the judgment award, and what the sharing should be among those who should receive the judgment award. The Long Island owners of the car that collided with the deceased’s car came to court to ask for a final determination as to the sharing of the heirs and surviving relative of the deceased in the proceeds of the wrongful death action.

The estate of the surviving spouse claims that it should receive half of the proceeds from the wrongful death suit as she is entitled to share in her deceased husband’s estate. The two surviving children of the deceased father asked for the disqualification of the surviving spouse’s estate and that the proceeds should instead be shared by them, the two children of the deceased.

The children of the also assert l if the estate of their mother, the surviving spouse of their father should be allowed to share in the proceeds, her share should be substantially reduced as she did not survive until the final determination of the wrongful death case.

A special Manhattan guardian was appointed for one of the children of the deceased, the son, who was a minor at the time of this action. The son sustained a brain injury from the same car accident that claimed his father’s life although the brain injury did not fully manifest until years later.
The court then reduced the share of the estate of the surviving spouse to only ten per cent of the value of the proceeds. The rest of the proceeds was ordered to be equally distributed to the two children.

One of the children of the deceased, the daughter, appealed the order of the court that distributed the proceeds of the wrongful death suit. She claimed that her share was substantially less than her brother’s. She argues that if the court had not reduced their mother’s share, she would have also participated in her mother’s estate as one of the only two surviving heirs of their mother.

The only question before the Court is whether or not the trial court erred when it reduced the share of the surviving spouse of the deceased which resulted in the minor son of the deceased getting a share larger than that of her sister’s by $50,000.00.

The Court held that even if it were not to put into account the fact of the disability of the minor son. The Court held that the lower court did not act arbitrarily but used a generally accepted legal means of formulating the shares in the proceeds. By applying the Kaiser formula, the minor son’s share became larger than that of her older sister’s, the difference is only $50,000.00 and does not represent such an excessive amount.

Considering that the difference in the shares of the two children of the deceased were a result of the use and reliance by the court on a legally acceptable formula for calculating the relative shares of the heirs, the court cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the Court resolved to uphold the finding of the court.

Continue reading "The children of the also assert l if the estate of their mother" »

A man drove to the house of a friend whom he was supposed to pick up. When he got to his friend’s house, he left the car engine running with the key in the ignition to ring the doorbell and alert his friend that he had already arrived to pick him up. While he was in the house, a man stole the car that was parked in the driveway. The thief took the car and drove off at such a high speed.

In the meantime another man was stopped at an intersection. He was waiting for the light to turn green so that he can make a left turn. As he was waiting for the traffic signal, the thief was driving from the same direction at such a high speed. The thief lost control of the He car and hit the car that was stopped at the intersection.

The impact of the stolen car hitting the stopped car was so great that the driver of the parked car lost consciousness while still inside his car. When the parked car was struck from behind by the stolen car, the parked car also careened off and hit another car.

The man who lost consciousness because his parked car was struck by the stolen car from behind filed a suit in damages. He claimed damages for the personal injury he sustained consequent to the car accident. He sued the owner of the car and the driver of the car from whom the car was stolen. He also included in the suit the thief who stole the car and drove it, the same thief who struck his car from behind. He also sued the insurer of the stolen car.
After the owner of the car and the driver of the car filed their answers, the driver of the parked car filed a motion for summary judgment. He claims that he was not negligent at the time of the car accident. He was sitting in traffic, waiting for the light to turn green at an intersection when he was struck from behind. He asserts his entitlement to a summary judgment and for an award of damages for the personal injury he sustained.

The owner of the car from Manhattan and the Long Island driver from whom the car was stolen filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the complaint against them be dismissed. They assert that they can only be made liable for the personal injury sustained by the driver of the parked car if they had actual control over the car at the time of the car accident. Since the car was stolen from them, they had no control over the car or over the thief who was driving the stolen car. They cannot be made responsible in damages for the personal injury sustained by the driver of the parked car.

The driver of the parked car opposed the summary judgment filed by the owner of the car and the driver of it. He claims that the owner of the car and the driver were negligent in that they left the car running in a driveway with the key in the ignition rendering it easy for the thief to steal the car.

The only question before the Court is whether or not the motions for summary judgment should be granted.

The Court held that the motion for summary judgment filed by the owner of the car and the authorized driver should be granted. They had no control over the car at the time of the car accident as the car had been stolen from them. They cannot be held liable for the damages caused by the thief when he recklessly operated the car. They are likewise not negligent when they left the car running in the engine. The law requires drivers to turn off their engine and lock the ignition only when parked in a public parking area. The car here was parked in the driveway of a house.

The Court also held that the motion for summary judgment filed by the driver of the parked car should be granted. He was not negligent when he was stopped in traffic. He was hit from behind by a person who acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others.

Continue reading "A man drove to the house of a friend whom he was supposed to pick up" »

This involves a case where the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to prove that the latter suffered serious injury threshold requirement of Insurance Law Sec. 5102 (d).

Plaintiff alleged that a car accident occurred on September 15, 2002 at approximately 5:15 p.m. at the intersection of Carman Avenue and Choir Lane in the Town of Hempstead, Long Island. Plaintiff claimed that as a result thereof, she suffered serious injuries. At her oral examination before trial, the Plaintiff testified that she had a preexisting spinal injury to her lower back from another car accident in 1988. After being treated for the injuries from that accident, the Plaintiff continued treating with a chiropractor for occasional discomfort to her back, "as needed," rather than having a set schedule of appointments. Following the subject accident, it was suggested by multiple doctors that the Plaintiff undergo surgery and/or physical therapy, but she declined and chose to continue seeing the chiropractor instead. The Plaintiff also declined pain medication immediately following the accident, preferring over the counter medication. But plaintiff admitted she had her first doctor visit for medical expert opinion after 18 months from the accident. Following the accident, Plaintiff testified to having trouble bending over, walking long distances, participating in her children's activities, dancing, hiking and brushing her teeth. Plaintiff claimed that she had some occasional discomfort in her back prior to the subject accident, and that the accident exacerbated that pain into a chronic condition.

The Court held that Plaintiff’s claims that her injuries satisfy the 90/180 category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) are unsupported and contradicted by her own testimony wherein she states that she only missed a week and a half of work and was confined to her home or bed for one week. Additionally, the Plaintiff does not provide any evidence that she was "medically" impaired from doing any daily activities as a result of this accident for 90 days within the first 180 days following the subject accident.

Having made a prima facie showing that the injured Plaintiff did not sustain a "serious injury" within the meaning of the statute, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to come forward with evidence to overcome the Defendant's submissions by demonstrating a triable issue of fact that a "serious injury" was sustained.

The Suffolk County Court held that the ambulance report and emergency room records presented by the plaintiff prove the occurrence of the accident, but do not provide any indication that a serious injury was suffered, and are not relevant for the purpose of determining whether a permanent or significant limitation resulted. Further, even with competent evidence, the unexplained 18 month gap in the Plaintiff's medical attention following the accident is fatal to her claim of serious injury. More specifically, the Plaintiff appeared to receive no treatment following the accident, aside from seeing a chiropractor who she had been seeing before the subject accident.

According to the court, while a cessation of treatment is not dispositive * * * a plaintiff who terminates therapeutic measures following the accident, while claiming "serious injury," must offer some reasonable explanation for having done so.

The Plaintiff provided no explanation as to why she failed to pursue any treatment for her injuries in the year and a half following the accident, nor did her doctors. Therefore, the unsworn medical records of her physicians should be deemed as stale and insufficient to present an issue of fact.

The 18 month gap between the car accident and the Plaintiff's first doctor visits renders the medical expert's later opinion on causation speculative and places into question the seriousness of the injuries themselves. While the Court of Appeals recently pronounced in Perl, supra, that a quantitative assessment of a plaintiff s injuries does not have to be made during an initial examination, it did not dispense with the requirement that a plaintiff must submit objective medical findings contemporaneous with the subject accident in order to raise an issue of fact with respect to causation. Additionally, the physician's opinion, in conjunction with the medical evidence as a whole, fails to describe how the Plaintiff's injuries amount to a "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Continue reading "According to the court, while a cessation of treatment is not dispositive" »

On 18 to 19 October 2007, at around midnight, the defendant went to the Island Rock nightclub in Hempstead with his girlfriend, a friend of his girlfriend and another individual. After drinking alcohol at the nightclub, the defendant and the other individual left and went to a nearby parking lot. At that time, the defendant did not appear intoxicated. According to the girlfriend’s friend, the defendant stated in the parking lot that he lost his shit, presumably referring to drugs, and the defendant became upset. The defendant went into the trunk of his car and searched for something. The defendant then began arguing with his girlfriend. At approximately 3:15 A.M., several witnesses heard gunshots, but no one reported having seen the defendant fire a gun. The defendant then angrily ordered the girlfriend’s friend to leave with his girlfriend, which they did, driving the defendant's girlfriend home. The defendant and the other individual then entered the defendant's vehicle, with the defendant driving. When police officers arrived at the parking lot only minutes later, at about 3:20 A.M., the defendant had left, and the officers recovered several 9–millimeter shell casings in the parking lot. At approximately 3:30 A.M., the defendant's vehicle was seen traveling west in the eastbound lanes of the Southern State Parkway at a speed of 70 to 75 miles per hour. According to numerous witnesses, the defendant's vehicle traveled in the wrong direction from about exit 19 to exit 13, a distance of approximately five miles. A witness observed the defendant driving directly at him while changing lanes. That witness had to immediately pull his vehicle onto the shoulder to avoid a collision. This long Island witness saw that the defendant continued driving the wrong way, and the witness observed the other vehicles on the parkway split apart in order to get away from the defendant. The witness testified that the defendant was steadily going, not braking, nothing; that he was just going; that he was speeding. Meanwhile, another witness, a Police Sergeant was also driving in the proper direction in the left eastbound lane of the parkway. As the Sergeant passed exit 14, he observed the defendant's vehicle driving towards him at a very high rate of speed, which caused the Sergeant to violently turn his steering wheel to the right to avoid a collision. The defendant's car came within inches of the Sergeant’s vehicle. According to the Sergeant, the defendant made absolutely no effort to get out of the way. Near exit 13, the defendant's vehicle, without ever having slowed down, collided with the victim's vehicle, killing the victim instantly and incinerating the victim's vehicle. When emergency services and police arrived on the scene and attempted to remove the defendant from his damaged vehicle, the defendant was agitated and his breath emitted a strong odor of alcohol. Following the defendant's arrest, a blood sample taken from him at 4:49 A.M., just over an hour after the motor vehicle accident, indicated that his blood alcohol content (hereinafter BAC) was 0.19%. After the defendant was removed from his vehicle, the police began conducting an inventory search of the vehicle. The discovery of several 9–millimeter rounds in the trunk, however, transformed the search from inventory to investigatory, during which the police recovered a 9–millimeter semiautomatic pistol, what was later determined to be .395 grams of cocaine (cocaine possession) beneath the front passenger seat, and 41 rounds of 9–millimeter bullets contained in a partially loaded magazine and a box in the trunk. The gun recovered from the defendant's vehicle matched the shell casings found in the parking lot near the nightclub.

Consequently, the defendant was arrested and charged. On 16 September 2008, the County Court, Nassau County, found him guilty of murder in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the first degree, aggravated driving while intoxicated or DWI, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.
The defendant filed an omnibus motion to suppress physical evidence which was denied by the court. The defendant then appeals from the said decision of the court.

The Ruling:
Under the law, a person is guilty of depraved indifference murder when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person.

Here, the testimony of the New York City witnesses who observed the defendant speeding directly at them on the parkway, causing those witnesses to swerve in order to avoid a collision, demonstrates that the defendant's mental state was one of depraved indifference to human life.

Moreover, the evidence demonstrated that the defendant helped the other individual leave the nightclub. The girlfriend’s friend testified that when the defendant left the nightclub, the defendant looked okay to him, didn't look like intoxicated, and that the defendant seemed like he could handle himself. Clearly, the evidence did not establish that the defendant was too intoxicated to form the culpable mental state necessary to prove depraved indifference. Thus, the record supports a view of the evidence that the defendant was coherent and able to form the requisite mens rea prior to leaving the parking lot.

Furthermore, the defendant's action of driving his vehicle towards oncoming traffic on the parkway for approximately five miles constituted reckless conduct which carried with it a grave risk of death and evinced a depraved state of mind. The negation of this intent, by extreme intoxication, is not supported by the record. For instance, the defendant helped the other individual into the car, he searched for his missing drugs, and the girlfriend’s friend testified that the defendant did not appear intoxicated. Thus, the court cannot conclude that the evidence of the defendant's guilt of murder in the second degree was legally insufficient to support that conviction.

Evidently, the verdict of guilt as to depraved indifference murder was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and that the verdict of guilt as to that crime was not against the weight of evidence. The hearing court properly denied that branch of defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence seized from his vehicle. The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing demonstrated that the search of the defendant's vehicle was authorized as a warrantless search falling within the automobile and emergency exceptions to the warrant requirement. In addition, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation. The sentence imposed was also not excessive.

In sum, the court finds that the defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review. The court finds that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the judgment is affirmed.

Continue reading "On 18 to 19 October 2007, at around midnight" »

Choices of law cases are one of the most confusing scenarios that in turn are capable of creating legal imperfections that even courts at times, find hard to fix. Our source claims that sometimes, the very law that was created to protect the innocent is also the same one that produces unlikely results to injured persons who otherwise should have been protected if not for the confusing nature of these kinds of laws. Although the country is divided into several states that have different policies on choices of law cases, they must deliver the fairest results in cases to protect all those who the most need coverage and defense. This next case is about conflicting laws of different states and how an innocent victim can get sidestepped because of confusion from conflicting laws.

In October 1964, three Michigan State University students decided to go on a trip in a Japanese sports car owned by Marcia Lopez. The sports car was a gift from his father and was registered and insured under her name in New York City. Susan Silk invited Marcia Lopez to visit her home in Michigan for the break when another passenger, Catharina Tooker, asked to hitch a ride with her classmates to visit some of her friends near the area where they were going. The three were taking academic courses in the university where they also stayed and lived in one dormitory. While driving in Michigan, Ms. Lopez lost control of the vehicle which caused it to overturn and killed her and Ms. Tooker. Ms. Silk sustained serious injuries from the car accident. Ms. Lopez and Ms. Tooker were both from New York. According to our sources, when an accident that involves persons of different domiciles, usually, the choice of law is determined by "lex loci delicti" or to apply the laws of the place wherever the tort happened.

The father of one of the injured passengers, Oliver Tooker, Plaintiff, moved for an action of wrongful death against the father of the driver, Myer Lopez, the Defendant in a New York City Court. The Defendant then insisted that he had no liability over the death of the other's daughter by issuing the Michigan guest statute as an affirmative defense, or plainly, to prevent the Plaintiff from being entitled to claims. To be able to determine which law must be upheld, several cases were cited and used as reference to establish the choice-of-law, and whether it is fair to use the doctrine of "lex loci delicti". Under these governing rules, it was clear that although the accident happened in Michigan, since the driver of the car and one of the passengers lived in New York, the laws of the State should be implemented. Under New York laws, the injured person, in this case the deceased, is entitled to claim damages from the deceased driver defendant, in this case as represented by her father from accidents arising from guest-host relationship, whereas the Michigan guest statute does not permit an injured guest for recovering damages from a host driver under normal circumstances. The driver will only be liable if he or she committed gross negligence and willful misconduct.

Since the sports car was registered and insured in New York, and that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are domiciled in the same state, then if follows that they must be governed by the laws of New York. However, the problem herein lies in whether Ms. Silk is also entitled to damages or not, since she was also injured from the car accident and whether the laws of New York for this case may be applied to her case. Ms. Silk was a domiciliary of Michigan, which does not entitle her to claims against the deceased driver. She will be entitled, however, if she proves that the driver was truly negligent which allowed for the car accident to happen. According to our source, the Michigan guest statute does not only prevent "ungrateful guests" from being able to claim but it is also a kind of protection from claims against Michigan insurers. This is also explained in another cited case, "Dym v. Gordon", where both the plaintiff and defendant were domiciled in New York, their guest-host relationship arose in the University of Colorado and the plaintiff in this particular case was injured when the vehicle crashed with another car and injured her. Upon returning to New York, she filed a complaint to recover for personal injuries against the defendant. The defendant this time, similar to what Mr. Lopez did, filed a Colorado guest statute defense.

Under the "Dym v. Gordon" case if the negligent host is somewhat protected by the strict proof of burden imposed on the injured and protects insurance providers more than recover by guests, then the statute fails its purpose to protect the rights of the injured. This is much like the Michigan guest statute. It means that although Ms. Silk was personally injured in the accident, because of the Michigan guest statute, she will not be able to recover from the driver's negligence. So when the Court chose that the laws of New York must be applied, Ms. Silk's case remained outstanding, unless a decision will be made to allow her to benefit from a New York law even though she was a domiciliary of Michigan. A forum selection is necessary to permit Ms. Silk to also be able to claim against the Defendant. In New York and Long Island, the insurance law states that the negligent party will be financially able to pay for damages, while innocent victims of injuries will be compensated from these injuries and other losses.

There is no problem with the Plaintiff, Ms. Tooker's father's case. As a New York domiciliary, he may be compensated for the loss suffered by the family on his daughter's death. On the other hand, Michigan doesn't allow the same benefit to plaintiffs who are claiming against a New York defendant with a car that was also insured in New York. It means that although the deceased driver and guest lived for a time in Michigan is immaterial. In another case cited, it was clearly shown that it s not reasonable to choose a place of law for the sole reason of recovering from an insurance. However, it is also fair to think that when a car owner pays for an insurance policy, then the owner intends to protect guests from negligent injuries that may arise if accidents happen.

The Defendant naturally disagreed by claiming that it was only accidental that the car was registered and insured in New York and that it was only accidental that the parties chose to ride in the same car instead of a car insured and registered in Michigan. Moreover, Ms. Tooker's choice of school may have even been accidental. However, the "lex loci delicti" was still rejected because applying it will not protect the rights of more parties. However, this must not mean that Ms. Silk's case will also be already out of the question. Since it has been decided that the laws of New York will apply, it means that the deceased passenger will be able to recover but Ms. Silk will not because she was a Michigan resident. She can neither recover from Michigan or New York, which should not be the case. According to the discussions made in the case, more anomalies should not arise from conflicting rules and that the main purpose of having Courts is to bring justice to innocent people regardless of technicalities among these rules.

Several cases were presented to consider Ms. Silk's case. In one of the comments made by the Chief Judge, as revealed by our Lawyer, he said that cases such as these are especially tricky and that the time has come to apply rules on a case-to-case basis by providing guidelines to solve guest-host problems that arise from different states. These new rules will guarantee that decisions will be fair and predictable and be truly reasonable for all the parties involved. Furthermore, he cited principles to solve conflicts such as the case above. First, when a passenger and a driver in a guest-host relationship are domiciled in one state, and that the car was registered in the same state, the law of that state should apply. Next, when the accident occurred in the state of the driver's domicile, and the state does not make him liable for the accident, he must not be held liable under the laws of the victim's place of residence. On the other hand, if a guest was injured his own domicile and he or she may claim for damages, the driver who comes from a state with no-guest statute must not invoke the statute as a defense so that the victim will not be able to recover.

In addition to those principles, the Chief Judge further stated that when a driver and a passenger are domiciliary of different states, typically, the law that will be upheld will be that of the state where the accident happened (lex loci delicti) but not if this rule will substantially impair other states' laws and produce uncertainty for the parties. He also agreed that New York was the place of choice for this particular case. In addition, according to Judge Keating, although the origin of the guest-host relationship was in Michigan, since the car was registered and insured in New York, and that the parties’ place of residence is New York, then the choice of law must also be in New York. Moreover, the New York laws would cover the innocent parties who sustained injuries as a result of New York resident's activities.

In the end, according to the Judge, the trip was not adventitious because regardless of where the car has been registered and insured, the trip would have pushed through among the three parties. Also, one of the most important determinants is the place where the guest-host relationship arose, in this case, in Michigan. Moreover, the trip was all purely based in Michigan. Looking at these reasons, the Judge thinks that Michigan guest statute should also apply. He also opined that this case is not entirely a guest-host conflict case but involves a death-action statute. Where one party died because of the car accident, the driver or her estate must be liable. In this case, the estate of Ms. Tooker may be compensated for the suffering that her death caused her family. It is only unfortunate that whichever law was applied, Ms. Silk was still governed by another conflict law that did not uphold her right as a victim, but she should have been compensated as well. Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the Defendant's affirmative defense was denied.

Continue reading "Choices of law cases are one of the most confusing scenarios " »

A local woman from Manhattan was killed last weekend after her car went off the side of the road and struck a light pole. After the woman’s car hit the pole, the vehicle then flipped over. The driver was then throw part way through the window of the vehicle, explains a witness. The police report did not state whether or not the woman was wearing her seatbelt at the time of the car accident. The woman was dead by the time that rescue crews arrived on the scene.

At this point it was unknown what caused the woman’s vehicles to leave the road while traveling at such high speeds. Police did not immediately suspect alcohol as a factor in the incident. There are many other possible distractions that might have caused the erratic driving, says a reporter.

The woman, who was in her mid-twenties, was a much loved local school teacher. Her students spent the last few days sharing their memories of her and writing remembrances. The school had some grief counselors available for students to talk so that they could sort out their feelings.

The crash shut down the freeway on Long Island for several hours last Sunday. Police were on the site for several hours while they documented the accident and then cleared the pieces of the vehicle. The woman’s body was removed by ambulance while they waited for the family to claim her body.

School officials said that they were unaware of any problems that the woman was having. The police report states that the woman was driving a vehicle that was over 15 years old. The age of the vehicle could have been a factor in the event. But at this point, any guess as to the exact cause of the accident would be pure speculation, believes a cop.

Services have not yet been planned for the woman and the teacher’s family was unavailable for comment. Police have issued a request that anyone who has any information regarding the accident contact them. The police will continue to investigate the event.

Continue reading "Local Teacher Killed in Car Accident " »

Thirteen people died in a car accident when a farm vehicle transporting field laborers crashed into a truck that was pulling a trailer. The farm vehicle, a conversion van which was over 15 years old, had not been properly inspected for several years, states a N York Car Accident Lawyer. The van crumpled upon impact leaving only two of the fifteen people in the car alive; the two survivors suffered severe injuries as a result of the collision.

The driver had a history of mostly minor traffic violations. The majority of which were moving violations although he was charged with driving while intoxicated several years before the accident. He was driving without a license at the time of the injuries. Although unknown with certainty at the time of this accident, it is suspected that many of the victims in this accident were not United States citizens.

All of the people in the van were not wearing seatbelts at the time of the accident. Although in general passengers in vehicles are required to wear seatbelts, the law in Long Island does not apply to farm vehicles which are subject to less stringent safety regulations.

The truck driver was not injured in the accident. The truck driver from Manhattan was just starting his vehicle after taking a break on the side of the road to catch up on some sleep. He was not blamed in the incident, explains a witness.

The van was traveling at a high speed when its brakes malfunctioned and the driver of the vehicle was unable to stop. Because they were on a two lane road there was very little room to maneuver to avoid the truck.

All of the workers had just finished an overnight shift working in a tomato packing plant when the accident occurred. It is suspected that the driver was tired at the time of the accident and had a slower than usual reaction time. If the driver’s response took slightly longer that average followed by the vehicle’s brakes malfunctioning, it would have been almost impossible for the accident to be avoided.

A well-known and popular sports personality was injured as a result of a car accident in Louisiana. He is currently receiving medical treatment in a local hospital.

The policeman has managed to obtain a report from the sports players’ agent. He said that the running back is recovering and did not suffer any serious injuries. This means that he is expected to be able to return to play sports again in the near future. The player is on the reserve list and is expected to be an important player in the future. It’s likely that he will stay in hospital for the next couple of days explains the car accident attorney.

The injuries are not thought to be very serious. Although he requires medical attention in a hospital, they will not affect his career or life in any way. Friends of the football player said that he is a strong willed character and that he will recover very quickly. His friends and family are grateful that he is ok and that he has a chance of recovery. He is getting better every day.
The player was a member of the practice squad during the last playing season. It’s expected that he has a good future at the club and will become one of the best known players in the not too distant future.

The Lawyer explains that the footballer was the passenger involved in the accident. His injuries were considered to be serious as he was admitted to the ICU at the local hospital. However, he has since been moved out to a normal ward.

Another football star from Manhattan and Long Island was involved in a car accident last year. This caused much more serious injuries and the player required surgery to save his life. He hasn’t yet returned to play, and nobody is sure whether he ever will.

The player involved in the most recent accident is expected to make a full recovery and should return to playing football shortly. It’s very lucky that this accident wasn’t more serious than it was.

Continue reading "Car Accident Injures Driver" »

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" »

According to reports that reached a doctor, this is a personal injury claim as well as personal damages claim by four private individuals against the state of New York in 1955. Hyman Portnoy, Theodore Galperin, Irving Mittenberg and Sheldon Ludmerer were the people involved in a road car accident on the night of June 26, 1955 going to Monticello on Route 42. All four men were riding a 1949 Oldsmobile Sedan which was being driven by Ludmerer. According to reports, the Oldsmobile skidded to the accident point somewhere about one half mile near Kiamesha. According to Ludmerer, the car swerved, skidded and hit a stanchion before it went off the road and finally stopping at a ditch ahead.

The expert also got the report that according to the testimony of Portnoy, immediately before the car accident happened, he felt the car passed by some pebbles and stones some 2 to 3 feet along Route 42. He also further testified that about a week or two before the accident, he had been walking on the same route and saw that there were sand and dirt thick enough to cover the pavement but failed to describe the exact thickness of the dirt.

On the other hand, when Ludmerer testified, he said that he was very familiar with the road that they were travelling that night. He said he did not remember seeing any dirt or pebbles on the road that night. He also said that we was not really paying attention on the actual road. At the hospital he casually mentioned to the State Trooper that he thought he was probably going too fast. But this part was not mentioned on his testimony on the court.

Elmer R. Winterberger, Assistant Civil Engineer employed by the State was called in to testify about the general condition of Route 42. He claimed he personally checks Route 42 every 2.5 to 5 months and that any dirt that would cover or reached up to the pavement will be hazardous whether the road was straight or curved. He also testified that there were indeed several accidents happened in the past but those were of different nature and circumstances.

According to a report, another witness for the State was called to testify in the person of State Trooper Michael J. Mahoney who patrolled route 42 from noon to 8 o’clock in the evening. That was approximately 3-4 times he was able to pass by the area of the accident. He claimed that he noticed no dirt, stones or pebbles where the accident occurred. He also said that when he questioned the driver, Ludmerer, he mentioned that he might have gone a little too fast on the curve.

Also according to sources in New York City and Long Island, another state witness was called to testify. Robert Miller, a manager of an auto sales company and a photographer at the same time took photos of the car after the accident as well as the road. He said he was looking for a tire mark but found none. He also said he wasn’t able to see any dirt, stones or pebbles.

Based on evidences presented as well as testimonies of both sides, the claims for personal injury and damages were dismissed. The photographs taken by Miller showed no significant dirt or any part of the road that will contribute to having pebbles or stones that could significantly cause accidents and damages.

Continue reading "According to reports, the Oldsmobile skidded to the accident point somewhere about one half mile near Kiamesha" »

A 58 year old man was killed at 10AM Sunday morning as a result of a car accident involving two cars, explains a report. The accident only claimed one life, but injured three other people who required hospital treatment.

The two cars involved were a 2004 Pontiac and 2002 Ford Explorer. These cars crashed head on, although it is not clear exactly why this happened. The accident happened at 10 am, and the driver died shortly after the collision.

Two passengers in the vehicle were injured but their injuries were not considered serious. However, both of these people were still send to hospital to be sure. They were treated at South Shore Hospital explains the representative. They were released from hospital after a few hours as they only really require minor treatment.

A third vehicle was very nearly involved in the accident but managed to swerve just in time. This caused the third car to hit the pavement, but fortunately nobody was hurt and the car only suffered from a burst tire. It's very lucky that this accident didn't involve more vehicles as it could have been even more deadly.

The court has copies of eye witness reports which claim that the vehicle involved in the accident was being driven dangerously and it is suspected that the driver hit another cars door mirror shortly before the fatal crash. The driver of this car has not yet come forward, so this cannot be proved. This could have been caused by distracted driving which is the main cause of car accidents in Long Island and Manhattan.

Firefighters tried to rescue the 58 year old from the vehicle. They used powerful Jaws of Life to bite through the metal roof of the car. The first aiders also called for a medical helicopter to take him to hospital. However, before it could arrive he went into cardiac arrest and passed away. The police department issued a statement offering words of support for the family.

The police are continuing to investigate the car accident and they have not yet made any charges as it is though that the crash could be the result of the dead driers actions. The State police are reviewing the evidence.

Continue reading "Fatal Road Traffic Accident Claims Life of 58 Year Old" »

Four children were seriously injured in a truck and car accident on Monday, said an . The driver of the car and mother of the four children was only slightly injured.
An investigator described the oldest child, who is 10, as the most severely injured in the crash. The boy was rushed to the hospital quickly from the scene. The other children were six, two and one and were admitted to the hospital and also listed in serious condition.

This was a terrible accident that sounds like it could have been avoided. In the initial reports it looks like the police think the mother was driving too fast and didn’t break in time to stop the accident.

The went on to say that the mother had been driving rather quickly along the road and a truck in front of her had gotten stuck in traffic. The mother allegedly didn’t notice the truck had stopped and abruptly smashed into it. Police said there were no tire tracks on the road indicating she had slammed on her breaks. This is an example of distracted driving.

There will be an investigation before any charges are filed against the mother. So far, it doesn’t look good and it’s too bad because she has a lot on her plate with such young children with what looks like very severe injuries.

One witness, who was reportedly at the scene of the car accident, said that the woman’s car hit the truck at a very "high speed," and went on to describe the accident scene as very bloody.
“That woman didn’t seem to notice the truck in front of her at all,” the witness said. “It was very scary to watch that accident happen and see all the blood all over the place. I really hope those kids are ok,” she added.

Once the witness dialed 911, it took only a few minutes for emergency vehicles to arrive at the scene. Police in New York City as well as Long Island are looking for signs of distracted driving like drivers on cell phones.

The truck driver that was involved in the crash was unavailable for comment.

Continue reading "Four children under the age of 7 seriously injured in a car crash Monday" »

For years now it has been a milestone for parents to switch their one-year-old children from rear-facing car seats to forward-facing car seats. NY Car Accident Lawyers pointed out today that a study from 2007 has convinced the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend raising this milestone to age two.
This study found staggering statistics that children under 2 are 75 percent less likely to suffer severe or fatal injuries in a vehicle accident if they face backward.
The Academy says a baby’s head is relatively large in proportion to the rest of his body, and the bones of his neck are structurally immature, described the NYC Car Accident Lawyer. They say if he’s rear-facing, his entire body is better supported by the shell of the car seat.
The Academy is also recommending that older children stay in booster seats until they are 4 feet 9 inches tall now, so that the seat belt fits properly on them and protects them better in the event of an accident.
The recommendations are meant to help parents move away from gospel-held notions that are based on a child’s age, a reporter observed. They want them to recognize that with each transition they make, from rear-facing to forward-facing, to booster seats, there is a decline in the safety of their child. Distracted Driving is also a cause of accidents.
Observers explained that other countries like Sweden present some compelling evidence that these recommendations make sense. Children in Sweden sit rear facing until age 4 and boasts the lowest highway fatality rate for children 6 and younger.
One report claimed it saved a young girl’s life seven years ago when a couple’s van landed upside down in a very traumatic traffic accident, revealed the NY Car Accident Lawyer.
The E.M.T.’s told the couple that as soon as they saw the car, they were ready to start taking out bodies. Instead, they found the entire family nearly unscathed, with all three children suspended upside down, still securely strapped in their car seats. They are trying to get drivers in Manhattan and Long Island to be aware if these facts.
Thankfully rear-facing car seats today can accommodate children who weigh up to 45 pounds.

Continue reading "New recommendations for car seats released today" »