The Bronx complainant is pleading the Court to release an Order which grants summary judgment on his favor pertaining on the subject of liability. The defendant, however, is in contradiction with his particular appeal.
This specific action is based on the 18-wheeler crash in Long Island Expressway that happened last April 10, 2008. The said Complainant’s vehicle was described as a flat-bed truck, while the offender’s vehicle is said to be that of a tractor-trailer type. It is a good thing that the Complainant’s driver was not hurt in the said accident; however, the defendant who was then driving the tractor-trailer passed out in the event of the said commercial truck ACCIDENT. He was immediately brought to the hospital for medical assistance by the ambulance that arrived just in time.
The complaint was asking for $19,200 total of claims for the alleged rental fees incurred when he opted to rent a truck for a determined period of time while the truck which was damaged due to the accident was still being repaired. No Personal Injury claims were made by both parties as a result of the truck accident.
It was duly established that the road was safe and dry at the time the accident took place and that it was conducive for traveling. Both drivers were also heading eastbound or at the center of the highway. There seemed to be a contradiction between the claims of the two drivers with regard to the traffic condition at that time though. The complainant pointed out that there was just medium traffic; while the defendant claims that there was heavy traffic at that time of the 18-wheeler crash accident.
It was described that the complainant was actually driving behind the defendant’s vehicle for around 5-10 minutes before the accident happened. Then the defendant’s truck suddenly pulled to a stop and supposedly glided to the right of the plaintiff’s vehicle and hit the guard rail which prompted the truck to motion forward in a horizontal direction across the right lane of traffic which hit the center passenger lane of the truck. The complainant’s truck was said to be still heading eastbound towards the center lane at the time of collision which rendered the defendant unconscious immediately right after his vehicle smashed the guard rail.
The defendant who was hurt, bleeding, and unconscious was unable to control his truck so that his truck halted horizontally which subsequently blocked the right lane of traffic. After the said impact, the complainant’s driver still continued to maneuver forward and then consequently pulled over to stop at the side of the road.
It is of standard exercise that summary judgment is only given after due examination of the underlying circumstances as well as establishment that there is limited or no such material issues of fact that could further inhibit one from being entitle summary judgment. This is also evaluated in such manner that is most favorable to the non-moving party; which in this particular case is the Brooklyn defendant.
A party who wants to be entitled to summary judgment should be able to prove a Personal Injury case by presentation of substantial evidence that there is no material issues of fact involved in the accident. It should be further established that there is no evident factual contradiction as to determining the defendant’s liability in account of the said accident.
As a general rule, one has no responsibility towards protecting someone under extraordinary circumstances which has been successfully substantiated by the Plaintiff in this context that there are indeed extraordinary circumstances involved in this particular accident. This was further supported by the driver’s deposition testimony as well as the deposition testimony of the defendant which further stresses that the defendant had some shortcomings during the accident. The defendant admitted that he was not wearing a protective seatbelt at that time. The plaintiff also stressed out that he was driving at a standard speed of around 40 mph and that the first instance that he noticed the defendant’s vehicle was swerving and was having some problems, he applied on his brakes instantly but was still cautious so as not to lose control of his own vehicle.
The burden of proof now rests on the defendant. He pointed out that the car in front of him suddenly stopped and that prompted him to immediately jam on his breaks to prevent collision but he was unable to control the motion of his truck and made him hit the plaintiff’s vehicle. He also further proved that he was neither under medication or alcohol nor was he using any radio or cell phone prior or during the mishap.
Based on the proof submitted by both parties, the jury was able to reconcile the differences and has come up to a decision that there are indeed substantial or material issues of fact pertaining to the truck accident. Thus, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied.
Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its top-notch Florida Lawyers will make sure that you will have fair trial and proper representation in court which gives you the competitive edge in defending your case and claiming compensation for damages. If you know someone who has met with the same accident and needs professional representation, call our office now.