Gunshot Victim

In Kelly v. Norgate Business Associates, a case that originated in the Bronx Supreme Court and went up on appeal, a gunshot victim was able to proceed to a jury trial in his action to recover damages against the building owner and its security company after he was shot in an apartment building lobby. The victim was visiting a friend in the building. When he entered he found the locks broken and the security guard never asked him to sign in. There was a group of 10 to 12 men in the lobby near the guard. When the victim left the the building, a fight broke out and the victim was shot, while the guard did nothing but call police only after shots were fired. The Appellate Division ruled that the victim may recover as a third-party intended beneficiary of the security contract between the building owner and the security company where there was evidence that security officers were to safeguard lives and not just property. It also noted the building owner may also be found liable as a jury may find the assailant was an intruder who entered and exited the building through the broken doors. www.foleygriffin.com

Illegal Aliens Entitled to Their Lost Wages

SCAFFOLD FALL

The Appellate Division Second Department decided a case on November 12, 2008 has determined that a laborer from Ecuador, who was in the United States without permission, was entitled to recover lost wages as a result of his injuries from a fall at a construction site. The worker fell from a makeshift scaffolding at a townhouse construction site after he was hired by one of the construction site companies to perform work. As a result of the fall of approximately 25 feet, the worker was left paralyzed. In December 2006, a jury awarded the worker $3.3 million, which included the very low amount of $102,000 for lost wages. The Court ruled that because the worker's employer violated The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 by not verifying the worker's identification documents, the worker was able to submit a claim for his actual lost wages to the jury. The Court then ordered a new trial unless defendants agreed to pay $6.8 million. http://www.foleygriffin.com/

Police Officer Liability

In Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, the Court of Appeals unanimously decided that a Suffolk County Police Officer was properly held 50 percent liable by a jury for an auto accident in which another motorist was injured. The officer was driving his vehicle on the Long Island Expressway in the middle lane during rush-hour traffic when he abruptly decelerated from 40 mph to a crawl while changing lanes. Plaintiff, traveling immediately behind him, slammed on her brakes and was able to stop without colliding with the officer's vehicle. However, seconds later, plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended by another vehicle.

The jury found both the officer and rear driver 50 percent at fault for the plaintiff's injuries. On appeal, the Second Department held the officer was not liable because his conduct was not a proximate cause of the accident as plaintiff was able to stop before striking his vehicle. The Court of Appeals overruled the Second Department, holding that "it is irrelevant that plaintiff was able to stop her vehicle without striking the officer's vehicle." The highest court in the state went on to find that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the rear vehicle. However, the rear driver's negligence in rear-ending plaintiffs stopped vehicle does not absolve the officer's liability as a matter of law. Clearly, the officer's actions created a foreseeable danger that vehicles would have to brake aggressively in an effort to avoid the lane obstruction created by his vehicle, thereby increasing the risk of rear-end collisions. It is a foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the officer that a negligent driver may be unable to stop his or her vehicle in time to avoid a collision with a stopped vehicle in the middle of the highway. http://www.foleygriffin.com/

Slip & Fall Accidents in New York State

Slip & Fall Accidents: As attorneys practicing in the field of personal injury in New York City and Long Island, we have many clients who have been injured in slip, trip and fall accidents. The first thing that we advise our clients at their initial interview, is the current applicable law in New York State. In order for a victim of a slip, trip and fall accident to be successful, she must submit to the Court that is hearing her case, sufficient evidence to create "a triable issue of fact" of whether or not the defendants either created the defective condition that caused her to fall or had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition. This can be proven by evidence that the defendants actually created the condition, or that they actually knew about the exact condition that made the victim fall. The victim may also prove this "notice" requirement by submitting evidence that an ongoing and recurring dangerous condition existed in the area of the incident, which was routinely left unaddressed by the defendants. This does not have to be the exact condition that the victim fell upon. If the victim does establish a condition was continuously present, the defendants may then be charged with notice of each specific re-occurrence of the hazardous condition. These rules are applied once the victim has successfully identified the proper defendants and followed all the legal requirements to effectively prosecute a civil case against them. As in most areas of the law, there are exceptions to these rules. It takes a cautious practitioner to identify and pursue all the proper parties and arguments in a slip, trip and fall case. www.foleygriffin.com