Staten Island

Published on: March 6, 2013

Following the accident, the injured party filed a lawsuit against the Water Department and the Town of Hempstead.

by Stephen Bilkis

In fall of 1989, an employee of the water department of the Town of Hempstead borrowed a city pick-up truck to drive it home. He had been allowed on several prior occasions to borrow the city truck to get home. He believed that it was OK for him to borrow it on this date to get home. On his way home, he was involved in an auto accident that resulted in serious personal injury. Following the truck accident, the injured party filed a lawsuit against the Water Department and the Town of Hempstead.

The Town of Hempstead countered that they do not feel that they should be held liable since the employee was not at work or engaged in any city business at the time of the accident. Further, he had not requested permission to borrow the truck on this date. The other times that he had been permitted to borrow the truck; he had asked for and received permission to do so. This was not the case on the night of this incident. In fact, the Staten Island employee’s job for the city did not require the use of a vehicle at all. The employee even testified that he had received specific instructions prior to the date of the accident not to take a truck home. He advised in testimony on several different occasions that no one had given him permission to use the truck on that night. He advised that he took it anyway because he needed to get home. The evidence that was presented in reference to the employee being told specifically that he could not take the truck home was not argued by either side. However, there were no prior violations by this employee or any other on file prior to the accident of the “no personal use” policy that had been implemented in the fall of 1989.

The Justices, however, ruled that since the employee had been allowed on prior occasions to use the truck, he would have believed that there was an inference of implied permission. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1) states that an owner of a motor vehicle is liable for the negligence of one who uses or operates the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied permission.

Published on: February 11, 2013

The eastbound vehicle was occupied by a male driver

by Stephen Bilkis

On July 2, 1955 at around four o’clock in the afternoon, a truck driver left the Twin Bridges bar and headed west on Route 11 between Mooers, New York, and Champlain, New York. At some point his truck came in contact with a vehicle that was eastbound. The eastbound vehicle was occupied by a male driver, his wife, two daughters, and his daughter in law. The Staten Island male driver of the car was killed in the commercial truck accident. The wife was still in the hospital and unable to testify at the time of trial. The daughters both claimed that they saw the truck shortly before impact cross over the center line of the road to sideswipe their vehicle. The daughter in law, who was seated directly behind the deceased driver stated that she had observed the truck cross the center line previously and then return to the correct side of the road. She stated that as the gap closed between the two vehicles, the driver of the truck crossed the center line again and this time hit their car with his truck.

The driver of the truck was criminally charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs and later Vehicular Homicide. He was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment. The jury was not privy to this information and although there was much discussion about the truck driver’s condition, there was no proof of his condition presented in the court. In fact, although it was pointed out that at the hospital following the accident, the truck driver’s blood was drawn and was given to the State Trooper, the results of that blood alcohol content kit was not discussed in the civil trial. There was not even a mention that it was or was not tested. If the jury had been told of his criminal charges and arrest, the inference could probably have been made.

However, as it stands, the victim’s family’s Westchester attorney only brought forth witnesses who could testify to the truck driver’s condition the night before while he was at the same bar. He had been so drunk that he had tossed his truck keys to another patron. He was described as being loud and boisterous and causing a scene. However it was pointed out that this was his normal demeanor even if he was sober. It was clear that he was asked to leave the bar.

Published on: February 3, 2013

Five are injured by tractor trailor

by Stephen Bilkis

A personal injury suit was commenced against a tractor-trailer and the employer of the driver after four adults and one infant, while passengers in an automobile, sustained injuries as a result of a truck accident. The Staten Island driver of the automobile in which they were passengers died as a result of his injuries. A collision occurred between the passenger car and a tractor trailer. The tractor trailer was under lease. This case was tried by the court without a jury and the question of contributory negligence is resolved in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed.

According to records in court, the trailer truck was without load and deadheaded westward bound from Clinton, New Jersey, to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It had been raining for some time prior to and at the time of the accident. The road surface was wet and visibility was fair. The accident occurred in the early morning about one o’clock. The sources said there was failure in the tractor trailer’s engines and the passenger automobile struck the tractor which rested in its pathway.

Under the Pennsylvania law, the presence of a vehicle on the wrong side of a highway is prima facie evidence of the driver’s negligence and the skidding or sliding of a vehicle of itself does not constitute negligence of the driver. It is thus incumbent upon the plaintiffs to prove that the skidding or sliding of the vehicle was due to the negligence of the driver. The operator of a motor vehicle is bound at all times to exercise reasonable care in its operation. As sliding or skidding of itself does not constitute negligence, something additional must be shown to justify a finding of negligence.

Published on: January 27, 2013

He was working as a concrete laborer on the site.

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 4, 2003 at a construction site on Cantiague Rock Road in Hicksville, New York, an employee of a concrete company was injured. He was working as a concrete laborer on the site. His job on that day was to prepare a concrete frame for a lamp pole base in the parking lot area of the job site. While he was standing next to the hole that the lamp pole base was going to be put in, he was struck from behind. The blow knocked him in to the hole and caused him serious bodily injury. He never saw what struck him. Witnesses on the scene, however, stated that they observed the concrete laborer standing on the side of the hole placing the wooden frame. They stated that the concrete truck had begun to back up and apparently did not see the concrete laborer. The chute of the concrete truck was down in preparation for the pouring of the concrete into the hole. The chute struck the concrete laborer in the area of his upper back which pushed him in to the hole.

The Staten Island concrete laborer filed a law suit against the construction company, the property management company, the property owner, the concrete company’s independent contractors and the concrete company. Within the first year of the law suit, most of these companies were able to prove that they were not involved in the truck accident and had no liability connected with the accident. What was left was a lawsuit against the concrete company, the subcontractors of the concrete company, and the construction company.

The issues that are under evaluation in this suit are under Labor Law § § 240 (1), 200 and common law negligence claims. Also under consideration are Labor Law 241 (6) claims. The victim further alleges violations of the following Industrial Code regulations: 12 NYCRR §§ 23-1.23(a-c); 23-1.5(a-b); 23-1.5(c)(1,3); 23-1.7(b)(1)(I), 23-4.2(a, f-g); 23-9.7(d); 23-9.11(a).

Published on: January 3, 2013

A wife, on behalf of the estate of her late husband, commenced an action

by Stephen Bilkis

A wife, on behalf of the estate of her late husband, commenced an action against the owners of the Westchester company employing the husband, a truck company and a steel company, to recover money damages for the wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering of her husband.

According to sources, the husband was severely injured in the course of his employment during tree cutting and removal operations when he was struck by a tree trunk which was suspended from a crane and wire rope, which were designed, manufactured and sold and distributed to his employee by the defendant companies. He died as a result of those injuries. The husband’s employer, a business involved in the storage and transportation of bleachers, was clearing property leased by it from the couple to create storage space for bleachers.

The New York Labor Law imposes a non-delegable duty on owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection to workers making them “responsible for a breach of the requirements of the statute irrespective of their control or supervision of the work site.” While the duty imposed by the law may not be delegated, the burden may be shifted to the party actually responsible for the accident either by way of claim of apportionment of damages under certain rules or by contractual language requiring indemnification by the injured worker’s employer.

Published on: November 29, 2012

In March of 1974, the Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department heard an appeal in reference to a commercial truck accident

by Stephen Bilkis

In March of 1974, the Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department heard an appeal in reference to a commercial truck accident. The commercial truck was accused of being illegally double parked on the side of a one way street in New York City. An eight year old girl was playing on the sidewalk and darted out into the roadway. She was struck by a passenger car that was driving down the roadway. She stated that she had not been able to see the car coming because her line of vision was blocked by the commercial oil tanker truck. Her account of the incident was corroborated by seven witnesses and her brother in law. The witnesses were playmates and neighbors. The oil tanker company stated that they did not have a truck there at that time on that date. The driver for the oil tanker company who normally works that area stated that he was not on that street on that date.

The Queens police officer who was first on the scene, pulled up behind the passenger car that hit the child, and blocked the roadway. The detective that responded to the scene took copious measurements and drew a detailed crime scene sketch which was later copied onto a more formal diagram. Even though he did not copy all of the measurements that he originally made onto the final formal diagram, those that were on the diagram were exactly the same as the ones that he had on his informal sketch. The measurements that the officer took show that the collision occurred within 15 feet of the sidewalk. A normal lane of traffic is 12 feet. The information on the measurements with the vehicle in place and the skid marks on the roadway, clearly show that there was no room for a commercial vehicle to be double parked on the roadway. If a vehicle of any size had been located where the witnesses claimed the vehicle was located, it would have been struck by the passenger car as it swerved to the left in an attempt to avoid the child. However, even if the truck had been there, it would have had no bearing on the accident itself.

The Staten Island child darted out in to traffic in the middle of the block. The child was not in a crosswalk and had no legal reason to be in the roadway at that particular spot. The question of liability in this case which was brought up in court was misleading at best. In the original trial, there was a tremendous amount of time and testimony given to the issue of the commercial oil tanker truck. So much testimony was given to the issue of the commercial vehicle, that negligence of the passenger car driver who struck the child took second place. In fact, the Supreme Court stated that the issue became so blurred as it concerned the commercial vehicle, that it was impossible to determine if the driver who struck the child was guilty of any negligence at all. The Supreme Court decided that the only issue that should have been dealt with in the first trial should have been the negligence or lack thereof in the case of the passenger car driver who actually struck the child. The Supreme Court further stated that it did not matter if the truck was there or not since the child was not in a crosswalk, the responsibility to cross the road safely fell entirely to her. The Court felt that even at eight years of age, she had the responsibility to look both ways and to ensure that she was able to cross the road in safety. Further, since the girl came off the curb and out into the roadway from between two parked vehicles, the court feels that it is possible that there was no fault at all on the part of the passenger car driver that hit her. A person darting out into traffic is not given the right of way in the roadway. In this case, the passenger car had the right of way when she entered the roadway. Only by showing some form of negligence on the part of the driver of the passenger car, can the child or the child’s parents as the case may be put liability on someone else. In other words, the driver of the car that hit the child would have to have been speeding, making an illegal lane change, losing control of his vehicle, or going the wrong way on the one way street in order for the accident to have been his fault. Since none of the above situations were shown, then it is doubtful that the driver of the passenger car is at fault in this accident.

Published on: November 11, 2012

In the morning of October in 1969, a 40-year old woman was involved in a car accident

by Stephen Bilkis

In the morning of October in 1969, a 40-year old woman was involved in a car accident and sustained serious personal injuries while operating her automobile eastbound on New York State Route 17. According to sources, the automobile struck a cement brick located on the roadway.

The Staten Island woman filed an action against a company manufacturing split limestone alleging that it had negligently loaded concrete building blocks upon a truck that it owned or controlled, with the result that one or more of these blocks fell on to the pavement of Route 17 and caused the unfortunate automobile accident. The manufacturing company has a policy of liability insurance.

An investigation on the accident was held and showed that prior to the day of the accident, the truck, while heading eastbound on Route 17, broke down a short distance to the east of Binghamton on Route 17. The truck was carrying split limestone, for delivery. The truck was towed to another location and the manufacturer borrowed another truck from a car leasing company. The borrowed truck was the one involved in the accident. The borrowed truck was also insured.

Published on: November 1, 2012

53-year-old Pedestrian Dead in Semi-Truck Accident

by Stephen Bilkis

According to city authorities, the truck accident that happened just after midnight last Thursday claimed the life of a 53-year-old male.

The police department and a trooper with the Texas Department of Public Safety responded to a report an accident involving a big rig. When they arrived on the scene, they found EMS medics trying to resuscitate an unresponsive male who was lying on the side of the road.

The 55-year-old driver of the semi was obviously disturbed as he spoke to police. He was not physically injured. According to his report, he was driving southbound in the outside lane at approximately 50 mph when he noticed someone “come out of nowhere and crouch in the road.”

Published on: October 18, 2012

Ozark police chief injured in accident

by Stephen Bilkis

A crash involving a tractor trailer injured the police chief of Ozark, Arkansas. The new chief had been in pursuit of a Franklin County escapee.

A bystander who was eating with his family across the street from the truck accident says he could tell the vehicles involved in the wreck could not see each other. “I looked up across the street and I seen the police car…. and I seen that truck, and that truck – he just didn’t see it,” he said.

The chief’s police car ran under the tractor trailer as he was in pursuit of an escapee.

Published on: October 9, 2012

Several Vehicles Wrapped in Wires Stuck Until Live Wires Investigated

by Stephen Bilkis

Wednesday in Waco, TX, two cars became tangled in phone and cable lines with live power lines hovering over them.

“There were some very dangerous moments,” bystanders said.

An 18-wheeler snagged the power lines and caused a chain reaction that brought traffic to a complete standstill.