Truck Accident Lawyer Blog 24/7
This case is fairly straightforward. It involves a truck accident which happened in the afternoon of October 1958. A panel truck was parked at the curb between an X-ray mobile truck parked in front of it and an unoccupied car parked behind it.
As the Nassau driver of the panel truck maneuvered to drive away from the curb, he first backed the truck for a distance of several feet. The right rear bumper of the truck accidentally caught onto the left front bumper of the car behind it so that as the driver drove the truck forward, the car was pulled along and propelled into the rear of the X-ray mobile truck in which the complainant was waiting to be X-rayed.
The Suffolk complainant requests the court for a summary judgment against the owners of the truck and its driver (who however died before the summons and complaint could be served to him). They also request for immediate assessment of damages by a jury. The owners of the truck, the defendants, moves that the plaintiffs be prevented from presenting a bill of particulars to the jury since they failed to provide this before initiating the demand.
Given the facts of the case, the complainant is clearly entitled to recover. The defendants opposed the motion for summary judgment but they did not present any proof and questions of doubt with respect to the truck accident which would require a trial. Additionally, the defendants do not deny the allegations that at the moment of the truck accident the panel truck was being operated by the driver as a matter of their business and also with their knowledge and consent. Moreover, as a response to the complainants allegations regarding the details of how the truck accident happened, the defendants merely denied any knowledge.
Considering these responses made by the defendant in the light of the facts, the court determines that there is no sufficient reason to deny the motion for instant judgment. In fact, the defendant’s allegations in their opposing affidavit, concerning information which it allegedly received regarding the accident, includes a statement allegedly made by the driver to the investigator employed by the defendant’s attorney. This gives the lie to the defendant’s claim of lack of knowledge as to the circumstances of the truck accident. In view of this, it must be presumed that defendant had plenty of chances to find out the facts relative to the truck accident.
Notwithstanding the opportunity which the defendant had to inform themselves of the facts, the information about the accident which was brought to their attention as referred to in their affidavit, does not bring up any material dispute as to the circumstances of the truck accident. Assuming, as claimed by the defendant that the car parked behind their truck was illegally parked, and even though there was no contact between the truck in question and the X-ray mobile where the complainant was, these facts do not serve to relieve the defendant of their liability since the operation of the truck was the immediate cause of the truck accident.
With regard to the motion by defendants for preclusion of the bill of particulars, the court believes that the bill of particulars would affect the determination of the motion for summary judgment. However, the defendant is entitled to the particulars with regard to the injuries allegedly suffered by the complainant and the related damages. The court grants the motion to preclude unless the complainants provide the defendants with a bill of particulars within ten days after a copy of the court order is given to the defendant. Otherwise, the motion to preclude is denied.
Even in such clear-cut cases, there are certain details which may affect the verdict. It is possible that by failing to provide the required documentation, defendants may not receive the full damages they are entitled to. Thus it is important to have expert lawyers to give advice. Stephen Bilkis & Associates can give their expert help in this matter. They can recommend lawyers who have experience in truck accidents. They may be contacted at their Corona, New York office and in several other offices around New York.