New York City

Published on: February 13, 2013

A truck was travelling on Lenox Avenue

by Stephen Bilkis

On July 25, 1967, a sixteen year old girl was walking on the sidewalk near 315 Lenox Avenue, , New York City. A truck was travelling on Lenox Avenue, lost control and struck a parked car. It then jumped the curb and drove onto the sidewalk where it hit the girl causing her to be pushed under the porch of a house. This truck accidentcaused her serious injury. Her mother filed a lawsuit against the driver of the truck for loss of her daughter’s services and medical and hospital bills.

The Queens driver of the truck denied all allegations. He denied that it was his truck. He denied that he was driving the truck. He denied that he lived in New York. His allegations of complete noninvolvement were too false as to cause the court to comment on the impropriety of his denials. There is no reason to believe that he is not responsible for the accident.

When the driver of the truck commented on the truck accident, he advised that he was heading east on Lenox Avenue when his truck struck a parked vehicle, went out of control, and jumped the curb. He advised that two girls walking on the sidewalk tried to run up steps of a porch and his truck hit the girls and shoved the girls and the steps under the porch.

Published on: January 22, 2013

Police woman is injured in a truck accident

by Stephen Bilkis

A 30-year old woman joined the New York Police Department in 1990, and served continuously until her retirement in 2010. In 2007, the policewoman, while assigned to the NYPD’s peddler unit, was unloading confiscated property from a truckto the NYPD’s property clerk in Queens. While lifting a box of property, the policewoman stepped back on to a shovel, which caused her to fall. The policewoman twisted her right knee and was admitted to the emergency room at a nearby hospital. The NYC hospital staff diagnosed her with a sprained knee. The knee was diagnosed to be permanently disabled, which restricted her desk duty.

The policewoman applied to the Police Pension Fund for Accident Disability Retirement but this was denied by a tie vote. Her counsel asserted that the only explanation for the shovel on the floor of the truck was someone else’s negligence; and that, accordingly, there was no reason for the policewoman to expect or foresee that the shovel would be left in a “dangerous location.”

The court held that in a challenge of a denial of disability payments, the PPF’s determination will be sustained unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or contrary to law.” The court said it cannot “weigh the evidence, choose between conflicting proof, or substitute its assessment of the evidence or witness credibility for that of the administrative factfinder.”

Published on: January 13, 2013

Rental truck runs into rear of another vehicle

by Stephen Bilkis

On August 6, 2005 an employee of an ice company was driving a rental truck on Rout 25A at the intersection of Warner Road in Huntington, Long Island, New York at about ten in the morning when he ran into the rear end of another vehicle that was stopped at the traffic light.

In this case, the owner of the rental truck company is asking for a summary judgment relieving it from liability due to the coverage under the Graves Amendment that provides an owner of a vehicle that “is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles shall not be liable under any State law for damages sustained in a motor vehicle accident provided there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner.” (see, 49 USC § 30106[a])

The driver of the rental truck opposes this motion since he claims that when he attempted to stop the truck, he discovered that the truck’s brakes were faulty. He claims that his negligence to maintain the truck in a safe fashion removes any protections that the Graves Amendment would otherwise have provided to the truck rental company.

Published on: January 10, 2013

Falling debris causes major injuries to worker

by Stephen Bilkis

On July 2, 1998, the Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department of New York was called upon to decide the issues in a case possibly involving a commercial truck accident. On the date in question, an employee of a property management company was working in a 40 story building that was under construction. It was his responsibility to prepare the stock room and make sure that the tools required to operate the building were at hand. One of his duties was to read the water meters in the building. While he was walking along a sidewalk near the loading dock where the construction deliveries were made, a net that is suspended over this walkway to catch falling debris from the upper stories fell on him causing substantial physical injury.

There are numerous questions of fact as it regards the incidents in this case. Some of the witnesses claim that the accident was caused when a truck delivering glass to the site was backing along the side near where the net attaches to the building. They contend that a handle sticking up from the top of the truck snagged the netting and pulled the net down. Other witnesses state that the company that was hired to keep the debris removed from the net so that the net would not get weighted down failed in their duty to keep the net clean and the weight from debris piled up in the net caused the net to fall. Another theory is that the net fell frequently and was faulty.

The court was concerned with several of these issues. In particular they felt that the fact that the crank handles on the truck were enmeshed in the net following the accident did not demonstrate that the handles had snagged the net. They stated that it was not surprising that the crank handles should be enmeshed in a net that had fallen on the truck covering it.

Published on: December 12, 2012

The accident report has to speak for what happened in the accident.

by Stephen Bilkis

On October 31, 1958 a mother was waiting to have her infant daughter x-rayed in a mobile X-ray truck, the truck was struck by another vehicle. The child was injured in the accident. The driver in the commercial truck accident later died. The accident report has to speak for what happened in the accident.

Apparently, the commercial truck driver attempted to move his vehicle which was parked against the curb in front of the place of business. There was an unoccupied vehicle parked behind his truck, and the mobile X-ray truck was parked in front. The driver put his vehicle into reverse and struck the car parked behind him. The bumpers interlocked due to the size difference in the vehicles. The commercial truck driver pulled forward causing the vehicle attached to its bumper to come into hard contact with the mobile X-ray truck that had been parked in front. The impact caused the injury to the infant.

The parents of the infant filed suit in Brooklyn, New York against the driver and the company that employed the driver for damages incurred because of the driver’s actions. They asked the court for an order granting summary judgment against the company and to direct immediate assessment of damages by a jury.

Published on: December 9, 2012

Following the notification of a lawsuit, the business notified their insurance company

by Stephen Bilkis

On May 8, 1964, a truck driver for a commercial company drove his employer’s truck to a business on Lake Shore Drive in Oswego, New York. Upon his arrival, the truck was being loaded by a crane operated by an employee of the business with scrap metal. One of the pieces of scrap metal struck the commercial company’s truck driver and causing him injury. After the injury, the commercial truck driver notified the business that he was filing a lawsuit for injuries and damages.

Following the notification of a lawsuit, the business notified their Bronx insurance company. The business’ insurance company then notified the insurance company for the commercial motor vehicle that the victim had been driving. They maintained that the loading of the commercial truck was covered under the motor vehicle policy that was under their jurisdiction. Therefore, the insurance company that was responsible for the damages should be the insurance company that covered the truck. The insurance company that covered the truck disagreed. They felt that it was the responsibility of the insurance company that covered the business, their property, and the actions of their employees. The insurance company for the truck was not notified of the truck accident until eight months after the accident in December of 1964.

The insurance company for the truck applied to the court for a motion of summary judgment on the contention that the insurance company for the business had failed, as a matter of law, to comply with the notice provisions of the insurance company for the truck’s policy. The notice of accident as it applies to that policy states:

Published on: December 2, 2012

On July 27, 2007, an employee for a water pollution control plant in Brooklyn, New York was at work in an area that was under construction to upgrade the facility

by Stephen Bilkis

On July 27, 2007, an employee for a water pollution control plant in Brooklyn, New York was at work in an area that was under construction to upgrade the facility. Part of the employee’s job was to provide identification checks on all persons working on the site to ensure that they were members of the Teamsters Union. The water pollution control plant provided him with a Chevrolet Silverado work truck to use while he was performing his duties. On this date while he was pulling up to park the truck, he observed another truck pull in and turn down a temporary road. The employee advised that he got out of his truck to walk down the road to check the man’s union card because it was a nice day. When he got out of his work truck, he stepped onto a temporary ramp that was set up by some of the construction workers on the site. The ramp was constructed of two by four pieces of wood. When he stepped on it, the boards separated and he fell approx. 18 inches to the ground breaking several bones in his foot. He filed a lawsuit to gain compensation for his injuries.

The employee stated in his suit that he felt that the water treatment plant was responsible for paying for his injury because they either knew or should have known that the ramp was in use on their property and that the ramp was not safe. The company disagreed. They felt that they did not install the ramp and that they did not know that it was in use. They did not feel that they should be held responsible for his injury because he was injured by his own fault because he was using the two by fours to walk on. The water treatment plant requested a summary judgment to dismiss all liability against them.

The court disagreed. They stated that the employees’ injuries came from an unsafe condition that was present at the construction site, i.e. the faulty ramp of two-by-fours which collapsed. The question of law is if the plant had actual or constructive notice of the condition of the ramp being used on the premises. The employee does not dispute that the water treatment plant did not build the ramp itself, only that they knew that it was there and did nothing to either make it safe or remove it.

Published on: November 20, 2012

The bus companies denied liability

by Stephen Bilkis

One day in July, a the driver of a truck owned by a car leasing company, and leased to a delivery company experienced recurrence of a mechanical problem with the truck in which the accelerator pedal occasionally sticks, does not elevate automatically when the driver’s foot is off it, and which the driver is able to correct only by tapping the pedal with his foot. The driver called the mechanics responsible for the maintenance of the truck who instructed him to drive the truck back into Manhattan.

In the afternoon, the truck was travelling westbound on the Long Island Expressway when the pedal stuck again as the truck was descending an incline. At that point the Expressway curved slightly to the left. The driver looked at the pedal for a moment, during which period the truck swerved on to the shoulder of the Expressway, striking two parked buses. A passenger in the bus suffered very severe injuries to his legs.

The passenger filed an action for damages against the truck driver and the bus companies. The bus companies denied liability arguing that the buses were not the proximate causes of the injuries sustained by the passenger.

Published on: November 13, 2012

New York’s Labor Law or common law negligence

by Stephen Bilkis

A case was filed raising the issue of whether the collapse of forms used for framing poured concrete foundations, stacked on top of a flatbed truck that killed a 40-year old man falls within the provisions of the New York City’s Labor Law or common law negligence.

One day in March of 2006, the man was fatally injured while standing on a flatbed truck when a bundle of concrete forms lying on the floor of the truck fell on him, causing him to fall to the ground below. The decedent was employed by a subcontractor to the owner of the premises where the accident happened. The subcontractor was to perform demolition, excavation, and foundation work in the construction of house.

The project where the demolition was done called for the construction of several three-family and two-family homes. The decedent had been working on the site loading concrete forms onto a flatbed truck. The forms were used in pouring the concrete foundation and were then removed. The forms were then stacked in groups of fifteen, bound together, and lifted by a Caterpillar 320 machine out of the foundation hole and onto the flatbed truck. There were six bundles of concrete forms that had to be lifted. Each bundle contained 15 concrete forms that were tied with two metal straps on each side. The truck accident occurred with the fourth bundle.

Published on: November 6, 2012

One August, on the Manhattan Bridge, two trucks collided head-on

by Stephen Bilkis

One August, on the Manhattan Bridge, two trucks collided head-on. According to sources, the day was rainy and the road surface slippery. The roadway was constructed of steel-ribbing with recessed concrete fill, adding to the slipperiness of the surface. As a result of the impact, the driver of one truck was thrown from his truck and sustained personal injuries. The truck driver who sustained the injuries filed a complaint against the driver of the other truck to seek compensation for the damages he sustained.

The driver of the other truck disputed liability and the nature and extent of the injuries allegedly sustained by the other driver. According to the defendant truck driver, he is not liable for the accident and the injuries sustained by the other truck driver because it was not his fault that the accident occurred. He blamed the bad weather, which caused the road to be slippery and hazardous to vehicle drivers. The defendant truck driver also said the plaintiff truck driver did not suffer permanent personal injuries that would cause him to lose his earning capabilities.

According to records in the NYC court, the sole evidence on the cause of the truck accident came from witnesses presented by the plaintiff truck driver. The records also showed that the plaintiff truck driver was involved in a prior accident in 1946. In that accident, he sustained an injury to his back. In the 1950 accident, the truck driver said he suffered injuries to the back, in addition to a fracture of a facial bone. A medical doctor who examined the plaintiff truck driver affirmed that the truck driver indeed sustained injuries as a result of the 1950 accident, but the doctor said the allegations on the facial bone fracture is yet to be determined by further medical exams.