Articles Posted in Motor Vehicle Accidents

You’re driving along a country highway, rounding a curve, when —- bam — you run into a cow. Yes, a cow! Why? Farmer Brown left a gaping hole in his fencing, and the big dumb animal wandered out. Can you sue the farmer for this obvious negligence?

Until just the other day, the answer was, surprisingly, “no”, at least not in New York. The rule in New York (which I blogged about last year) was that you could sue the owner of an animal which harms you ONLY if the owner knew or should have known the animal had “VICIOUS PROPENSITIES“.

This “vicious propensities” rule grew out of dog bite case law. The courts reasoned that it wouldn’t be fair to hold a dog owner liable for his dog’s first bite unless he knew his dog was a problem. This was sometimes referred to – though not very accurately – as the “one free bite rule”.

Not long ago cars were death traps. Then Ralph Nader, a trial lawyer, wrote a best seller called, “Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile“, published in 1965. The book detailed the resistance of the auto industry to investing in safety features, such as seat belts.

Then great trial lawyers brought a slew of products liability lawsuits against the auto manufacturers. The automobile industry responded by designing safer cars, featuring seat belts and then airbags, to avoid shelling out millions to mangled auto crash victims.

But the auto industry kept getting sued because lawyers kept arguing the vehicles could be made still safer, which spurred a leap-frogging of safer and safer designs. As a result, we now have side air bags, crash-resistant chassis, seat belt alarms, anti-lock brakes, etc.

We at the Michaels Bersani Kalabanka personal injury law firm know all too well how dangerous Grant Ave. (Route 5) is in Sennett, just outside of our hometown of Auburn, NY. If you don’t believe us, just google “car accident Grant Ave. Sennett New York” and look at the list of reported cases! Why so many?

Well, Grant Ave. is the main thoroughfare between Auburn and Syracuse. There’s way too much traffic, too many commercial parking lots to turn into and out from, and traffic moves way too fast. That’s a dangerous brew, but add to it the fact of life that many drivers just aren’t careful enough, and there you have the explanation.

Many of the car accident cases we handle happen right here in nearby Sennett on Grant Ave. In fact, we just settled a motorcycle-car collision case that took place on Grant Ave. at the intersection with the Wallmart parking lot.

I recently blogged about a new nationwide trend to criminalize “drowsy driving”. Caffeine-crazed prosecutors around the country are going after sleep-deprived drivers who doze off at the wheel on criminal charges including manslaughter and other serious felonies. (The prosecutorial equivalent of pouring cold water on sleepy drivers.) Could YOU end up on the receiving end of such prosecutorial zeal some day? Hey, wake up and smell the coffee — you too drive sleepy once in a while!

Yesterday, New York City prosecutors lost a nine-week multiple-manslaughter trial against a bus driver they charged with driving while drowsy. Essentially they argued that, by getting behind the wheel of the bus knowing he had not slept enough, and then causing an accident because of his sleep deprivation, he committed manslaughter and other serious crimes.

The jury disagreed. Yes, he caused one of the deadliest crashes in New York City’s history. Yes, he was probably negligent in the extreme for having driven a busload of innocent unsuspecting passengers on too little sleep. But no, he was not criminally liable.

Just read an article in the New York Times titled, “Push to Prosecute Drowsy Driving May Hinge on Its Definition“. Before I discuss this article, I need to make a confession: I’ve done it. I have driven drowsy. I’ve felt myself nodding off at the wheel. It has happened a few times in my life, and every time it scared the crap out of me. Come on, admit it — it’s happened to you, too!

Now I (and you?) could go to jail for it. According to the article, law enforcement officials are pushing State legislators to make driving-while-drowsy a crime punishable by jail time. This follows a decades-long trend toward criminalizing dangerous driving behaviors, such as drinking-while-driving, texting-while-driving and phoning-while-driving.

Until now, law enforcement has simply coaxed the sleepy driver with friendly nudges from roadside signs, such as “You Snooze, You Lose” or “Drive Alert, Arrive Alive.” Is it a good idea to up the ante, to make it a crime?

Today a driver was seriously injured when she careened over an embankment at a sharp curve on Lakeshore Road, near Ontario Ave, in Cicero, near the edge of Oneida Lake. Some witnesses say the car was going too fast, but a neighbor was quoted in the paper saying the curve has a history of bad crashes.

The “history of bad crashes” caught my eye. By force of habit, my NY car accident lawyer thinking cap went on. Get under that cap with me for a moment.

Here’s my stream of thought: “Could this unfortunate driver, even if she was going a bit too fast, bring a claim against the State, County, Town or whoever designed the roadway? Did the design of the roadway contribute to her car accident? Was the posted speed limit too fast? Were there adequate signs announcing the curve? Should they have installed flashing yellow lights or other hazard warnings for the curve?”

The kid standing behind me in this photo, trying his hand at hair styling, is my oldest son Sebastian. (Don’t worry – he has already ruled out hair styling as a career option.) On September 30 he will turn 16. Yesterday he announced that we are going to the DMV to take his driver’s permit test on his birthday at 9:00 a.m., and he is driving us home.

For most parents, this rite of passage is worrisome. But for a guy who represents car accident victims, and deals with clients’ terrible car wreck injuries every day of the week, it’s grueling. My hair is already grayer than it was in this photo.

It is a well known fact that car accidents are the number one cause of death for kids his age. It is not such a well known fact that sixteen year old kids driving is the number one cause of grey hair in aging fathers.

Today I accompanied a wreck of a man — a severely injured car wreck victim — to a so-called “independent” medical examination (“IME”). (You will see why I say “so called” soon enough.) The poor guy got t-boned a few years ago and ever since has suffered horrible pain emanating from his cervical and lumbar spine. He has had two surgeries, one on his neck and one on his lower back, not to mention countless rounds of physical therapy, epidural injections, trigger point injections, pain meds, and chiropractic treatment. Even so, he has been losing his war against the pain.

All of his many doctors have concluded that (1) he is badly injured; (2) the car accident caused his injuries (he was fine before then!); and (3) he is totally disabled.

Open and shut case, right? Wrong. The insurance company defending this case has a right, under New York personal injury law, to have the victim present to a so-called (there I go again!) “independent” medical examination (“IME”) by a doctor of their choice. The so-called “independent” doctor (paid by the insurance company) then renders an opinion whether the victim is injured, and if so what his injuries are, whether the car accident caused them, and whether he can work at all.

Just read an article in the New York Times titled, “How to Know if You Have Enough Auto Insurance“. The article gave some interesting statistics: Nationally, the average jury award for motor vehicle accident injuries is $181,197, and about 5 percent of car accident injury claims in 2010 were for more than $100,000 while only about 2 percent reached $300,000.

Then there are those occasional multi-million dollar jury verdicts. How do you protect yourself against those?

Anyone can make a mistake driving, including you. Do you need to protect yourself against such judgments? Is it expensive to do?

The Syracuse Post Standard reports that the top 5 cell phone carriers in the U.S. receive a total of 1.3 million requests from law enforcement agencies for personal and location data. Cell phones have built in GPS tracking devices that record the cell phone’s whereabouts. Police use of cell phone data is now widespread, even among small, local police departments.

What the Post Standard article does not say is that New York car accident lawyers like me also use cell phone data in our cases. Here’s how:

Say I have a car accident case where the defendant driver, at deposition, tells me he was not at all distracted when he entered an intersection against a stop sign and collided into my client’s car. Let’s say he claims my client “came out of nowhere” and therefore “must have been speeding”. My next question? “Sir, do you have a cell phone” (answer: yes). My next question: “were you using it at the time of the collision or just before the collision” (Answer: “no”). Next questions, “what carrier do you use”, and “what is the phone number”.

Contact Information