Queens

Published on: February 22, 2013

Driver is not listed to operate vehicle

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1958, a company obtained an insurance policy for a truck that was routinely operated in the course of their business. On day during the coverage of this policy, the Queens business owner’s nephew was driving the truck and caused a commercial truck accident. The insurance company stated that they did not feel that they should be responsible for the accident because the nephew was not specifically listed to drive the vehicle. There is no argument that the nephew was at fault in the accident itself.

The Manhattan company owner argues that the policy itself clearly states that it covers any person who is driving the vehicle. The issue of if the owner had given permission to his nephew to drive the truck was not addressed during the trial of the issue. The policy states that it will insure not only the company owner, but also, any “person while using the vehicle with his permission.” The court points out that “the duty to defend is broader than the duty to pay.” Goldberg v. Lumber Mutual Casualty Ins. Co., 297 N.Y. 148, 154, 77 N.E.2d 131, 133.

The court points out that the entire issue of whether or not the insurance company is liable for the compensation that was awarded to the injured parties in this case would have been moot if the insurance company had simply represented the nephew in the first place. If they had done that, then their rights as well as the nephew’s rights would have been protected. Since they did not, the injured parties are allowed by law to seek compensation from the insurance company since the nephew either was not able to pay or simply did not pay the compensation ordered by the court.

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: February 8, 2013

Driver falls off his truck and sustains injuries

by Stephen Bilkis

October 29, 1954 a Manhattan husband and father of two died because of an accident while he was working for a machine company. On that day, the man was walking back toward his company truck that he had parked a few moments before. He had been talking to some of the other employees and was going back to get into his truck. A few minutes after walking away from them, the other workmen heard him fall and turned around to see the employee on the ground with his hands on his head. He was about ten feet from the rear wheel of his truck.

None of the other employees saw what happened before he fell or even how he fell. There was speculation that he had fallen off of his truck, but no one actually saw him fall. The truck had mud on the tires and wheel wells, the fallen employee had no mud on him. The employee had a fracture to his skull and had suffered a stroke before dying. The issue here is which came first. Did he have a stroke and then fall fracturing his skull or did he fall, fracture his skull and the fracture led to the stroke. The only evidence presented at trial of a fall from the truck was on the attending physician report and that doctor stated that he had been told by one of the other employees that the victim had fallen off of the truck.

The company brought forth medical records from 1952 when that particular driver had been rehired by the company. The doctors who had examined him had recommended that he not be rehired because his health was not suitable for the job. The doctor at that time had diagnosed him as overweight, with excessive hypertension, arteriosclerosis and alcoholism. This brings the concern back to the medical report from the date of the Truck accident that lists the cause of the injury as a fall from a truck. The doctor testified that he obtained that information from other employees. Each of the employees that was present on that date has testified and each one stated that they did not tell the Queens doctor that they saw him fall from the truck. In fact, they each stated that he was about ten feet from the truck when he fell and none of them saw him fall.

Published on: January 29, 2013

Telephone Co. truck injures eight year old

by Stephen Bilkis

The records of the personal injury case showed that an eight-year old child was playing cops and robbers when he was struck by a car directly in front of a building owned and operated by a telephone company. The sources said the truck of the Manhattan telephone company was standing adjacent to and west of a vehicle parked near the easterly curb of the avenue where the accident happened. Thus, within the roadway of 32 feet, at the site of the truck accident, parked parallel, were three vehicles, two near the easterly curb and one near the westerly curb.

Prior to the occurrence of the truck accident, the child ran across the avenue from the west curb to the east curb. Upon arriving at the east curb, he was directly in front of the telephone company building; he then turned to retrace his steps in a westerly direction of the avenue and was struck down by one foot west of the telephone company’s truck by an automobile proceeding northerly. The Queens operator of the northbound vehicle testified that prior to the accident he had stopped for a red light and then made a right turn into the avenue traveling north toward the scene of the accident. He said he observed the double parked truck.

The right front headlight of the northbound vehicle came in contract with the child. The operator of the northbound vehicle said he did not see the child prior to the accident. The child also testified that he did not see the moving vehicle before the accident. The mother of the infant testified that children habitually played in front of the telephone company building.

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 19, 2013

Vehicle in accident not covered by policy

by Stephen Bilkis

On June 19, 1965, a company truck belonging to a fleet of company vehicles was involved in a serious accident resulting in injuries and lawsuits to recover damages. However, when the Bronx owner of the fleet applied in a timely manner to their insurance company for litigation support and the benefits owed under the policy, they were informed that the particular vehicle in question was not covered under the policy.

A review of the policy showed that although the company owned five vehicles, three of the five that were listed on the policy had different engine numbers than the vehicle insurance policy. In fact, the three vehicles that were listed on the policy were not owned nor had they ever been owned by the company. The company filed a lawsuit against the Queens insurance company claiming a mutual error in the policy and demand for benefits.

The insurance company contended that since the vehicle that was in the truck accident was not listed on the policy that it would not be covered. The court maintained that there have been numerous other cases that have been examined in situation like this. It is more important that the written word of the contract reflects the verbal agreement between the parties than the other way around. Since the intent of both parties was to insure the fleet of vehicles owned by that company, the insurance company needs to make the adjustments to the policy to demonstrate that fact. That means that the vehicles that are listed on the policy, but that are not owned by the company need to be removed. It also means that the vehicles that are owned by the company and not listed on the policy need to be added. In all of the precedent cases reviewed this correction to comply with the verbal agreement between the parties was upheld.

Published on: January 5, 2013

35-year old man was returning, one December day, by car from New England

by Stephen Bilkis

A 35-year old Queens man was returning, one December day, by car from New England with his wife when he met an accident. According to the man’s testimony, he had a slight collision with a van in the entrance ramp of the Bruckner Expressway. The collision resulted in locked bumpers. The two drivers exited their vehicles to disengage their bumpers. The next recollection, the man said he was waking up on the ground.

The man’s wife, now deceased, testified at an examination before trial that while she was watching her husband dislodge the bumper, a tire rolled past and hit him in the back, rendering him unconscious. She stated that the tire was traveling so fast, she thought that it killed him. The wife first saw the tire when it was about five feet away from her husband, and did not see where it came from. According to records in court, the tire had an identification tag stapled just below the tread. The tag bore the name of a tire manufacturing company.

The man filed an action against the van owner and the tire manufacturing company to recover damages for the personal injuries he sustained as a result of the accident. The tire manufacturing company moved to dismiss the action complaining that the evidence presented failed to establish any negligence on its part, and failed to connect it with the offending tire. The trial court granted the motion.

Published on: December 19, 2012

On August 24, 1950 a truck was involved in an accident that resulted in a personal injury claim

by Stephen Bilkis

On August 24, 1950 a truck was involved in an accident that resulted in a personal injury claim. An action was commenced in the Supreme Court of Kings County for review. The elements of this case are that following the accident, the Brooklyn insurance company for the truck contacted the insured person who had been driving the truck and told him that he was not going to be covered in the accident. The insurance policy had been purchased about four weeks prior to the accident and was supposed to be in effect for one year.

However, 21 months after the truck accident and an entire year after the notice of a lawsuit action had been served; the insurance company contacted the driver and informed him that at the time of the accident, his insurance had lapsed due to a suspension and that the insurance company would not be covering the accident. The date that the accident occurred was in the early part of the policy and clearly within bounds of being covered by that policy. The driver of the truck filed a lawsuit to make the company supply the insurance coverage that he had paid for.

The Supreme Court stated that after a review of the evidence in this case, there was no evidence that either the driver or anyone on behalf of the driver authorized suspension of the policy. Further, they could find no one in the insurance company who had authorized a suspension of the policy at any time and certainly not during the time span that covered the accident in question.

Published on: December 10, 2012

On February 19, 2005 a commercial truck accident occurred near the intersection of First Avenue and 78th Street

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 19, 2005 a commercial truck accident occurred near the intersection of First Avenue and 78th Street. A pedestrian was attempting to cross the street on 78th Street. A commercial truck was attempting a left turn from 78th Street onto First Avenue heading north. The Queens pedestrian was struck by the rear left wheel of the commercial truck while he was inside the confines of the crosswalk. While this would seem to be a straightforward account of an accident, there are still questions to be answered. Depending on the way you evaluate an incident, the fault can lie with either party.

The victim states that the truck driver is responsible for the accident and his injuries because he was lawfully crossing the street inside the crosswalk when the commercial truck accident occurred. The commercial company that owns the truck claims that the pedestrian was intoxicated and that the truck never hit him. They claim that he walked into the back wheels of the truck while he was intoxicated.

The question is considered as to whether a pedestrian or a motorist has the right of way at an intersection and code 34 RCNY § 4-04(b)(1) clearly states that “the operator of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing a roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is in the path of the vehicle or is approaching so closely thereto as to be in danger.” Also Vehicle and Traffic Law §115(a) provides “when traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk on the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling. . .” Several expert witnesses were offered who stated that had the driver been using due caution and looking in his mirrors for pedestrians, the accident would not have occurred. They stated that they believed that the truck driver should have been able to stop the truck which would have prevented injury to the pedestrian.

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.