Archive for the ‘Car Accidents’ Category

DRAM SHOP ACT

RECENT CASE A TWIST ON WHO CAN SUE THE BAR OWNER

As we saw in the previous post on Drunk Driving Lawsuits in New York, an injured person may sue the bar that provided liquor to a visibly intoxicated person, who caused the injury. If the person that was intoxicated injured themselves, the intoxicated person could NOT bring a lawsuit against the New York bar under the Dram Shop Act : The seller of liquor has no obligation to protect a consumer against the consequences of his own voluntary intoxication.
In this case, an injured lady had consumed very much alcohol at a bar, after she had ingested pain medication. When she left the bar, at about 5 AM, she attempted to cross a parkway. She was hit by a car. She sued the owner and driver of the car. (As noted above, she did not have the right to sue the bar that sold her the liquor).
The owner and driver of the car that hit the women then decided to bring the bar owner into the lawsuit. They made the point that the fact their vehicle hit the lady was due, in some significant way, to the fact that the bar allowed the lady to become excessively inebriated. Here, we have someone other than an injured party, seeking to make a bar owner partially or totally responsible for an injury, under the Dram Shop Act !
The trial (lower) court said this was NOT valid under the Dram Shop law. The Appeals Court (higher court) said it WAS a proper application of the intent of the Dram Shop law, and allowed the case to go forward !
The higher court ruled that the Dram Shop Act’s intention was to protect the communities of New York from the dangers that intoxicated people can cause the community, and allowing this lawsuit would further that intent.

It is interesting to see how the Dram Shop Laws will play out in the recent case against a New York City Police Officer Accused of Drunk Driving and Killing A Ministers Daughter in Brooklyn.

It is truly unfortunate whenever those sworn to uphold the laws upon which our society is based proceed to violate those very same laws. It was our founding father, John Adams, who first stated the now often heard truism that the United States is “a nation of laws, not of men”. That regardless of a person’s station in life, the laws apply to each and every individual.
As Mayor Bloomberg says in the accompanying video on a recent post about the NYPD officer who killed the minister’s Daughter crossing the street, it is precisely because of the trust and responsibility we assign to police officers in our society, that they are to be held to an even higher standard than others. To be so very irresponsible as to become intoxicated, and then get behind the wheel of a car, flies directly in the face of the standards we must set for someone who walks among us with a badge and a loaded weapon !

DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED | CELL PHONE USE WHILE DRIVING | TEXTING WHILE DRIVING

On January 11, 2010 the New York Times, in its “Technology” section, published some interesting, yet disturbing, statistics: 11% of drivers, at any one time, talk on their cell phones while driving (per a federal study); Drivers using cell phones cause 2600 deaths each year (per a Harvard study)*; 570,000 accidents causing minor and major injuries are the result of cell phone usage (Harvard study);

With the growing awareness by Americans of the hazards of cell phone usage in cars, the NYTimes also found (in a NYT/CBS NEWS poll) that 50% of Americans hold the view that texting and driving should be punished at least as harshly as drunk driving.

This attitude is fortified by published studies indicating that drivers using cell phones are four times more likely to have an accident than other drivers.   In fact, the likelihood that someone using a cell phone will crash has been shown to equal that of a driver with a .08 percent blood alcohol level, the level considered “impaired” in many, if not most, states.

While the dangers of cell phones usage, in ALL its forms, is well established (texting, hands free, hand held),

no state has banned the use of cell phones while driving entirely.  The most that has been restricted is the use of hand held devices.  Federal employees are not allowed to text while driving, pursuant to an executive order issued by President Obama.

For the Personal Injury Attorney, the issue of distracted or impaired driving while using a cell phone has become an entirely new area to be investigated in automobile accident cases.  This is also a new area for litigation and discovery.  There will, undoubtedly, be judges across the country that will be reluctant to permit opposing parties access to the cell phone records of their adversaries.  Nevertheless, as knowledge about the horrific hazards cell phone usage poses while driving becomes more widespread, our courts will hopefully expand dramatically their tolerance for the discovery of cell phone records.

Currently, any experienced Personal Injury attorney will make every effort to obtain cell phone records of an opposing party if there is the slightest indication that cell phone usage may have been a contributing cause of the accident involved.

*Transportation Secretary LaHood states the annual death toll from cell phone distraction amounts to 5,800

THE IS A CONTINUATION FROM THE “DRAM SHOP ACT IN NEW YORK“POST

Serving Liquor to the Under Aged in New York

Serving liquor to a minor is recognized almost universally in the Untied States as highly undesirable, and states seek to discourage such activity. The application of “Dram Shop Acts” are therefore much more broad when applied to minors compared to their application to adults.
While the Dram Shop Act in New York State, as we will see, is strictly limited as to the provider of alcohol that it targets when the intoxicated person is an adult, the Act targets any person at all that provides liquor to anyone under the age of twenty-one. Thus the provider of alcohol targeted could be in an establishment that sells liquor, or it can be an adult in a home where liquor is being served at a party. If you serve liquor to a minor, and that minor causes an accident which injures some third party, that third party will have a cause of action against YOU. One important point: The injured party that seeks to sue a commercial enterprise (such as a bar)that sold the liquor to a minor must be able to show that the minor was intoxicated at the time the minor caused the accident. Just because the bar served the minor liquor would not be enough, in and of itself, to make the bar subject to a lawsuit by the injured third party.

Can A Drunk Teen Cause an Accident and Sue The Party or Person that Served Them?

One other point: If you serve liquor to a minor, and the intoxicated minor himself is then injured in an accident which the minor caused, the minor would NOT be able to sue you. A person cannot bring a lawsuit based on an accident caused by that individual’s own intoxicated condition–and this holds true for adults and minors.

DON’T ASSUME YOU KNOW THE ANSWER

There are numerous other variables that can arise, including exceptions to general rules, and any time a serious accident occurs, especially if caused by intoxication, it is of the utmost importance to seek the counsel of an experienced New York Personal Injury Attorney.

CONTINUED IN: DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENTS IN NEW YORK

Contiued From DRAM SHOP ACT: DRUNK AND UNDERAGED IN NEW YORK

FIRST POST IN SERIES : DRAM SHOP LAWS IN NEW YORK

Those That Serve Alcohol can be Sued for Drunk Driving Accidents in New York

When a person drives while intoxicated and causes an accident, any person injured in that accident caused by the drunk driver may well have the ability to sue not only the owner and driver of the drunk driver’s vehicle.   You may be able to sue someone that supplied the liquor that caused the driver’s inebriation.   This applies, as well, to a person injured in any kind of accident at all that was caused by an intoxicated   person. (Caution: an intoxicated person causing injury to himself would NOT be able to sue the person that provided him with alcohol !).
This ability to sue the provider of alcohol  to an intoxicated adult “tortfeasor” (person that causes an accident) does have restrictions.  First, and most importantly, this law, in New York State, applies only to the commercial sale of alcohol.   Serving liquor to someone at a function or party, for example, would not bring the person  providing the liquor under this statute.
In order to hold a seller of liquor responsible, it is also necessary to show that the sale of the liquor went directly to the person that eventually caused the accident.   It is not enough to show that the person selling the alcohol sold it to one individual who then turned around and gave or sold it to the eventual “tortfeasor”.
Finally, it is essential in order to establish liability on the part of the person selling the liquor, to show that at the time the seller of alcohol  sold the liquor to the intoxicated  person, that buyer was VISIBLY INTOXICATED.   This may well be the most difficult aspect of  bringing a “Dram Shop Act” lawsuit,  since the requirements for the person bringing the lawsuit in showing “visible intoxication” at the time of the sale are very strict and burdensome.    It is this element alone that should make it immediately obvious toanyone injured by an intoxicated / drunk person  to contact experienced and knowledgeable New York Personal Injury Attorneys as quickly as possible  so that appropriated evidence can be gathered in an expeditious manner. DON’T ASSUME YOU KNOW THE ANSWER

DISTRACTED  DRIVING | DRIVING WHILE TEXTING | CELL PHONE USAGE WHILE DRIVING

United States Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood declared the recent findings of an insurance industry study “irresponsible.”  The conclusion of this study was that laws enacted by several states, banning phone calls and/or texting on hand-held devices, have NOT led to fewer accidents. This result is nothing short of astounding. It directly contradicts other findings and  has become the subject of considerable controversy. This outcome flows from a study of insurance  claims filed both before,  and then following, the enactment of these bans in California, New York, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.

Six states ban the use of hand-held devices and nineteen states and D.C. limit the ban to texting.

The Governors’ Highway Safety Association limits its position to a ban on texting. It wants more data before deciding on whether to call for a ban on all hand-held devices. On the other hand, the National Safety Council wants to see a total ban on all distracting devices, including hands-free devices!

Should the issue of the use of distracting devices come  up at trial, the potential certainly exists for dueling experts. Nevertheless, to the experienced Personal Injury Attorney, this is not an unusual occurrence and would not, and should not, deter the attorney from  pursuing this item of evidence  to what will hopefully be his client’s advantage.

To read the complete article about the Study CLICK HERE.

AUTOMOBILE INJURIES: HOPEFUL SIGNS | POTENTIAL DANGER

A recent report by the Insurance Council of Texas indicated a steady seven year decline in Texas in the number of people injured or killed in automobile accidents. The decline is over 20%. The Texas Department of Transportation confirms a drop in five of the last six years. While we have not performed the research to confirm this point, scuttlebutt among the personal injury bar is that the number of automobile cases across the nation have diminished significantly over the past several years. This is reflected in caseloads involving auto accidents, and in the nature of cases appearing on court calendars. It is confirmed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety which indicated that Texas is following a nationwide trend. (“Claims Journal,“ Feb. 10, 2010)

Why is this the case? Simply because the safety features now available in cars assist the vehicle occupants to mitigate injuries when accidents do occur, and also assist a vehicle operator in avoiding an accident from occurring in the first place. Effective seat-belts, front and side airbags and head restraints fall into the mitigation of injury category. Electronic stability control, traction control, ABS brakes, and even forward collision and lane departure warnings fall into the accident avoidance category.

We remind the reader, however, that a major contributor to a potential upsurge in highway accidents lurks in mobile devices, whether handheld or otherwise, as numerous studies have indicated.

On this point, an insurance company recently settled a matter involving the death of two bicyclists in South Carolina for 5 million dollars (unusual in itself in that such a large amount of insurance was available). Why did the company settle on behalf of its inured rather than go to trial?: Their insured had pleaded guilty, criminally, to reckless driving after having been originally charged with “reckless homicide”. A basis for those charges: the driver of the vehicle was on a cell phone at the time of the crash. (Claims Journal, February 10, 2010)

If you have been injured by a driver that was on a handheld device in any manner contact our Manhattan Accident Attorneys office at Orlow Law today.

As Reported by the New York Times,

“For the second time in five weeks, a New York City police officer has been arrested on charges of killing a pedestrian while driving drunk, this time in the Bronx, officials said on Friday.

Drana Nikac, 67, was killed.

The scene, Kingsbridge Avenue at West 232nd Street in the Bronx. It was the second recent fatality with a police officer at the wheel.

About 6:30 a.m., the police said, Detective Kevin C. Spellman, 42, a 22-year veteran of the Police Department, was driving south on Kingsbridge Avenue in his government sedan when he struck the woman, identified by relatives as Drana Nikac, 67, as she crossed the avenue near West 232nd Street in Kingsbridge.

Drunk Driving Accidents in New York should not be tolerated, especially by those that are commissioned with the protection of the citizens of New York. This is not only just an incident of Police Misconduct in NYC, this is seemd to be a further sign of a culture that seems accepting of shirking the responsibility to its citizens.  If you have been a victim of police misconduct or a drunk driving accident in New York, make sure to stand up for your rights and make your voice heard.  As citizens we have the responsibility to keep our protectors in check.

As Reported  by ktla.com

An 11-year-old girl has died after the car she was riding in overturned, and the driver has been charged with driving while intoxicated and vehicular manslaughter.

The accident happened early Sunday on the Henry Hudson Parkway in Manhattan.

Police say 31-year-old Carmen Huertas was driving with seven children, including her own daughter, to a sleepover at her Mount Eden home just before 1 a.m. Sunday when she lost control of the car.

The vehicle reportedly veered off road, flipped several times before hitting a tree.

Some girls were thrown from the car from the force of the impact, cops said.

Leandra Rosado, 11, of Chelsea, was taken to Saint Luke’s Hospital in Manhattan, and died there.

The other girls, ages 11 to 14, suffered broken wrists, broken legs, and contusions, according to a hospital spokesman.

Huertas’ 11-year-old daughter broke her wrist, he said.

Another tragedy in New York City involving speeding and children leads to death and unnecessary suffering of a family.  This is further proof that as a parent you must not only be directly responsible for your children but also for the lives of others.  As Car Accident Attorneys in New York City we see such preventable tragedy too often.

Don’t just think about your life, think about the lives of others. Imagine life with out your loved ones before you decide to endanger the lives of others, especially children, by driving recklessly or intoxicated.  One poor choice could be monumental.

There were a lot of delays and injuries today when a dump truck being used for road construction hit an overpass, knocking off its bed into the eastbound lanes of New York State Thruway. Two were critically injured with 15 other injuries.

State Police said the accident occurred about 5 a.m. at mile marker 337 and caused a traffic standstill that has lasted more than three hours.

Sgt. Robert Simon said the dump truck that was being used for construction on the Thruway when it struck the County Route 7 overpass with its raised truck bed. The bed came free of the truck and landed in the road.

Two vans carrying adults and children struck the bed, causing the injuries.

If you or your loved ones have been involved in a trucking accident, it is important to contact an attorney with experience in this area. At The Orlow Firm we have experience representing the victims and families involved in commercial vehicle or trucking accidents. Contact our experienced Brooklyn attorneys office today for more information.

Source: www.theithacajournal.com