Westchester County

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: December 7, 2012

On August 26, 2005, a passenger car and an 18 wheeler crashed

by Stephen Bilkis

On August 26, 2005, a passenger car and an 18 wheeler crashed at the intersection of Queens Boulevard and Van Dam Street in Queens, New York. The driver of the car advised that she was on Van Dam Street and was making a left turn onto Queens Boulevard, which has three westbound lanes. An 18 wheel commercial truck was in the lane to her right. The driver of the car stated that when traffic began to pull forward, the commercial truck began to merge in front of her vehicle. She said that she stopped and remained stopped in traffic while the truck struck the front passenger side of her vehicle and proceeded to pull of her bumper. The front seat passenger advised that the passenger car that she was in was at a complete stop in the left most lane when the last wheel of the commercial vehicle struck the right front bumper and crushed the passenger side of the vehicle inward trapping her inside the car.

The driver of the commercial tractor trailer stated that he was making a left turn onto Queens Boulevard from Van Dam Street in the right lane and was moving into the center lane, which was reserved for trucks only. The driver stated that before merging, he looked in his mirrors and did not see anything in the center lane where he was merging. The driver of the truck stated that he was about halfway into his turn when he felt the vehicle make contact with another vehicle. He later testified that he did not see the passenger car prior to the accident, but did see the passenger car hit his tire. The Westchester truck driver stated that when the contact occurred, both vehicles were moving and that the passenger car was moving faster than his truck. After the accident, the truck driver stated that the driver got out of the passenger side of the moving car and approached the front window of his truck. The driver of the passenger car has asked the court for a summary judgment to find that liability for the accident rests entirely on driver of the truck and does not rest at all on her. Both the driver of the commercial vehicle and one of the passengers in the passenger vehicle, ask that the summary motion be denied because there are more issues of fact that need to be decided.

There is clearly a conflict of testimony in that each driver states a completely different account of the accident than the other. The driver of the truck is maintaining that either the passenger vehicle was trying to pass him on the left hand side while he was making a left hand turn, or that the passenger vehicle was trying to change lanes in front of his vehicle. The driver of the truck further maintains that the center lane of the roadway is reserved for trucks and that because his vehicle makes wide turns, the passenger car would have had to move into on-coming traffic in order to pass his truck. The truck driver also states that the driver of the passenger car was not actually driving her vehicle at the time of the accident. He states that the alleged passenger of the vehicle was actually the driver of the vehicle. He stated that the woman who identified herself as the driver of the vehicle, but who did not have any identification on her at the time of the accident had a tattoo on her left bicep of a scroll. At her deposition, the alleged passenger of the car had a tattoo on her left bicep that was a scroll. Also, the driver of the passenger car had a tattoo on her left arm of a cross. There is also dispute about if the passenger door was operable after the accident.

Published on: December 4, 2012

A man was sitting in his truck at a stop light when he was struck in the rear

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was sitting in his truck at a stop light when he was struck in the rear by a commercial rental truck causing substantial injury to his vehicle and to him. He and his wife filed a lawsuit against the driver of the rental truck, the business that hired him, and the rental company that leased him the vehicle.

The Long Island rental company appealed the Supreme Court’s first decision because they should not have included it in the issue at all. They advised that they hold no liability in the course of this accident because all they did was lease the truck and that the truck had been maintained in good working order. They advised that there was nothing wrong with the truck or the truck’s brakes which would cause it to strike the vehicle in front of it without driver error.

The driver of the rental truck had made a deposition earlier in which he had agreed that there was nothing wrong with the rental truck or its brakes and that the accident was driver error. The Westchester driver was using the rental truck in the course of his business and was working for that business at the time of the accident. The business concurred that he was working for them and that it was their business.

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: October 30, 2012

High School Senior Passes His Dad’s Tragic Wreck in School Bus

by Stephen Bilkis

In January, a tour bus filled with high school students was travelling down the highway returning from an Honor’s Choir concert at the University of North Dakota. An accident ahead forced the bus to slow down.

The wreck was severe. According to a witness, the scene didn’t look like anyone could have survived.

As the students peered out at the wreckage, a senior boy recognized his father’s car.

Published on: October 25, 2012

Fire Trucks Damaged by Tractor Trailer Returning This Summer

by Stephen Bilkis

One of the two fire engines severely damaged in a truck accidentthis past January is set to return to duty by late June. The trucks were damaged when a tractor trailer crashed into them on an icy interstate. The fire rescue vehicles were parked on the highway in a staggered position to protect rescue workers responding to a car crash.

The incident occurred during a snowstorm at about 8:30 p.m. Six firefighters were injured. They were brought to Bridgeport Hospital where they were treated and released.

Engine 1 and Engine 5 were damaged so severely, that the common thread of thought in the days right after the crash was that they’d have to be scrapped. They had been hit simultaneously by two tractor trailers while parked on the interstate in a standard protection formation.