Central New York Injury Lawyer Blog

A Yellow Dot Can Save Your Life

November 14, 2013 | by Michael Bersani

As New York car accident lawyers, we have represented many critically injured motor vehicle accident victims over the years. One thing we have learned is that first responders who arrive at the scene of a wreck aren’t always able to take into account the victims’ health history or medical conditions before rendering treatment. And that’s too bad, because that knowledge can mean the difference between life and death.

For example, I am on a blood thinner (Xarelto) because if have developed some atrial fibrillation – a common and minor disorder of the heart. And I sure would want anyone performing emergency medical care on me to know about that. After all, I could bleed to death if they do surgery on me without knowing I am on blood thinners.

Now there is a potentially life-saving program from the New York State Sheriffs’ Association that can help you, your family, and your friends alert first providers about their medical conditions and medications. It’s called the “Yellow Dot Program” and it works like this:

Bystanders Accidently Shot By Police Face Uphill Battle In New York Personal Injury Lawsuits

November 11, 2013 | by Michael Bersani

I came across a New York Times’ article the other day titled, “Bystanders Shot by the Police Face an Uphill Fight to Win Lawsuits.” We don’t get a lot of cases brought by bystanders struck by police bullets in my neck of the woods (Central New York), but the article interested me because it deals with an area of law I write and speak about frequently; “governmental immunity”.

First, a bit of background. The legal doctrine of “governmental immunity” in very general terms says this: As long as a governmental actor, such as a police officer, exercises his or her discretion in making a decision, the victim of any negligence can’t sue for the harm. This doctrine is meant to protect our governmental agencies, such as police departments, from a barrage of lawsuits and allow them to make their sometimes necessarily spur-of-the-moment decisions without fear of being sued. It also protects all of us taxpayers from getting hit with huge bills for lawsuit verdicts.

But recently, in my opinion, the Court of Appeals has taken the doctrine too far. As a result, it seems almost impossible to hold a police officer liable for his or her negligence. For example, in 2010 the Court threw out a lawsuit brought by a bystander struck by police bullets intended for an armed robbery suspect, even though the police officers testified THEY NEVER EVEN LOOKED TO SEE IF THERE WERE BYSTANDERS NEARBY BEFORE THEY STARTED FIRING. The police won that suit by relying on police guidelines stating that officers should not fire their weapons when “in their professional judgment, doing so will unnecessarily endanger innocent persons”. They claimed they had exercised their “professional judgment”, and thus were off the hook. But how could they even exercise that “judgment” if they never looked to see whether there were any bystanders? Four of the seven justices said it did not matter; the police were acting within their discretion when they fired, and thus were protected by “governmental immunity”.

Michaels Bersani Kalabanka Once Again Ranked “Tier 1 Best Law Firm” By U.S. News & World Report

November 8, 2013 | by Michael Bersani

I’m proud to report that Michaels Bersani Kalabanka has once again been honored by U.S. News & World Report as a “Tier 1” National Best Law Firm for our area of expertise, that is, New York personal injury law.

The 2014 rankings were announced November 1 of 2013. This prestigious national recognition — recognizing that we are among the best in the nation at what we do — not only honors us for being good, it might even make us BETTER at what we do! How?

Insurance defense firms and insurance adjusters who sit on the other side of our cases — and who aren’t familiar with the high quality of our work already — might take notice that they are dealing with a top notch firm that gets top results, and may thus be more inclined to settle with our clients at top dollar without a need for trial.

Liability For Allowing Dog Loose Which Causes Cars Or Bikes To Crash

October 10, 2013 | by Michael Bersani

I just love it when I’m right!

Last year I blogged about the Court of Appeals (highest court in NY State) case of Hastings v Suave where the Court made an exception to the general rule that, if an animal harms someone, the owner can be held liable only if he knew or should have known that the animal had “vicious propensities”. The issue in that case was whether a farmer could be held liable for negligently allowing his cow to stray out into the road and cause an accident. Obviously cows are not “vicious”, so under the general rule the farmer could not be held liable for the harm.

The wise Court saw the need for an exception to the rule, and held that “a landowner or the owner of . . . a farm animal . . . may be held liable where the animal is negligently allowed to stray from the property on which the animal is kept even when the animal did not display ‘vicious propensities'”.

Syracuse Personal Injury Lawyers at Michaels Bersani Kalabanka honor “Everyday Heroes” at Syracuse Crunch games!

October 9, 2013 | by Michael Bersani

As all of Auburn and Cayuga County knows, all summer long, at each home Auburn Doubleday baseball game, Michaels Bersani Kalabanka honored a”Hometown Hero“, that is, a local community volunteer who had given his or her time and talents to a local charitable organization. In front of the whole crowd, we regaled them, and their family and friends, with free game tickets, food, drink, etc.

But that was not enough for us. In fact, the program’s success only whetted our appetite for more! So now we have expanded the program to all of Central New York.

This fall and winter, and all the way through April, “Everyday Heroes” will be nominated, selected and then honored at all Syracuse Crunch home hockey games this winter.

Central NY Auto Accident Lawyer Explains How To End The Texting-While-Driving Crisis In New York

September 24, 2013 | by Michael Bersani

I recently blogged about Governor Cuomo’s new beefed up penalty for texting while driving (from a 3-point violation to 5 points). But apparently the Gov ain’t done tackling texting. His latest anti-texting initiative is to designate old rest stops along the Thruway and other major highways as “Texting Zones” (see photo).

Here’s my take on the Gov’s new laws: I know the Governor might be naïve to think that his “texting zones” are going to make a lot of texters pull over, just as I know that increased penalties are not likely to put a dent in the texting while driving problem. But I submit he’s moving in the right direction.

The truth is that texting while driving is now so pervasive in New York, and probably everywhere else, too, that the Governor’s anti-texting measures are the equivalent of sticking your finger in a dike that has already burst. Believe me, I know how ubiquitous the practice is, since I sue texting drivers for the broken lives their habit leaves behind.

Yes, You Can Be Held Liable For A Car Crash Happening Right Now Thousands Of Miles Away — Syracuse NY Car Accident Lawyer Explains

September 21, 2013 | by Michael Bersani

Texters beware! You might be held liable for a distant car crash happening right now as you sit in the comfort of your living room texting a friend. To find out how this is possible, read on!

A New Jersey appellate court recently held that texting to a driver you know is reading your texts, or is likely to do so, while driving, can make you liable, along with the driver, for any resulting accidents (Kubert v. Best, 2013 WL 4512313, N.J. Super. App. Div. Aug. 27, 2013). This is the first case in the nation expanding tort liability for car accidents to remote texters. Until now, only the texting driver could be held liable for the accident he caused while texting, not the companion texting with him from some remote location.

The case was cleverly argued by plaintiffs’ counsel. They pointed to case law that said a passenger in a motor vehicle has a duty “not to interfere with the driver’s operations”. For example, it has long been the rule that a passenger can be held liable, along with the driver, for showing him a road map to read while driving where the distraction causes an accident.

Note From A Worried NY Car Accident Lawyer / Father.

September 17, 2013 | by Michael Bersani

This Central New York Personal Injury lawyer handles a fair amount of car accident cases. I see a lot of bloody and broken tragedy behind the wheel. Young inexperienced teenagers are the worst. How many kids have I seen wreck their lives, and those of others, in stupid car accidents? Every time one of those kids’ parents walks in my door, I cringe – will that be my kid someday?

So letting my own 16-year old boy get a driver’s license does not come easy. My parental paranoia increased ten-fold when one of my partner’s 17-year old kid wrapped his car around a tree this year. He, lost consciousness for several hours, and ended up with a traumatic brain injury. Luckily he healed well after several months, but jeez, what a fright and worry for his poor parents.

But it’s time to cut the umbilical cord. No more helicopter parenting for me. Today he takes his mandatory four-hour driving course, which then allows us to sign him up for his driver’s test. He’ll be showing off his driver’s license by his 17th birthday (September 30).

Lessons For New York Personal Injury Lawyers From Obama’s Syria Debacle: Careful With That “Line In The Sand”!

September 14, 2013 | by Michael Bersani

President Obama reportedly told Syria, in sum or substance, “if you use chemical weapons on your people, we will use punish you militarily”.

Then Syria used chemical weapons on its people. But instead of inflicting military damage on Damascus, as promised, Obama hemmed, hawed, asked his allies what they thought, asked Congress what it thought, etc.

So what happens the next time the U.S. says to a dictator, “if you do x, we will do y”? What does an empty threat do to our credibility for future negotiations?

Drunken Student’s Dash Into The Gorge Will Go To Trial

September 2, 2013 | by Michael Bersani

I came across an article recently in the New York Law Journal titled “Drunken Run Could Leave Cornell Liable for Fatal Fall”. It’s about a case judge Ramsey (Ithaca, Tompkins County) recently decided where a drunken, and possibly stoned, Cornell University student suddenly bolted from the friends he was walking with on campus, ran down a marked hiking trail, departed from the trail, ran through the woods, hurdled a split-rail fence, and plunged to his death into the 200-foot gorge below. (The trail is appropriately named “Fall Creek Gorge trail”.)

Cornell moved for summary judgment (to have the case dismissed) based in part on New York’s General Obligations Law §9-103, which says landowners who allow the public to use their property for recreational purposes without charge are generally immune from liability. This law was enacted years ago to encourage landowners to open their fields and woods to hikers, bikers, hunters and others.

Judge Ramsey denied the motion and allowed the case to go to trial. The Judge reasoned that General Obligations Law § 9-103 grants immunity only for recreational activities, such as hiking, and here the kid was not “hiking”. The judge relied on a definition of “hiking” in the Department of Environmental Conservation’s regulations, which says hiking is “walking through trees for pleasure or exercise”. Here the kid was not “walking for pleasure”, the judge said, but rather running wildly through the woods in the middle of the night for unknown reasons.