Articles Posted in Commercial Truck Accident

Published on:

On June 3, 2004 on Jamaica Avenue near the intersection with Route 112 in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York, a man was involved in a three car truck accident that resulted in serious personal injury to a driver of a black Hyundai. The incidents surrounding the accident are that a gas station was under construction on the corner. The construction manager of the gas station operated a white van that was illegally parked in front of the no stopping or parking sign on the side of the roadway. A dump truck also working on the gas station was dropping off a dumpster at that location and was blocking part of the roadway. The driver of the dump truck stated that he put out cones and set his lights to emergency flash to let oncoming traffic know that there was a hazard. The first vehicle in the accident completed a left hand turn onto the roadway and was blocked by the dump truck. She stopped in traffic to wait for the dump truck to move. The second vehicle did not see her stop and struck her vehicle, which knocked her into a third vehicle and ultimately it was knocked in to the vehicle of the victim on the opposite side of the roadway. The victim filed a lawsuit against the construction manager for causing the truck accident. The construction manager alleges that he was not responsible for any vehicle other than his white van and that the dump truck was not his or in any way under his control. He states that liability should be attached to the dump truck company and not to him.

The Nassau Court hearing this matter states that there are serious issues of fact that need to be determined. Whenever such issues of fact exist, it is incumbent upon the Court to ensure that a jury hears the arguments. Any motions for summary judgment must be denied as a matter of course in such circumstances because the Court cannot determine which issues of fact are credible and which ones are not credible. Because material facts of this accident are in dispute or different inferences may reasonably be drawn as the facts of this case, the Supreme Court must deny the motion for summary judgment as requested by the construction manager and his company. Only a trial can resolve issues of fact that are presented.

Issues of law are constantly changing. A person who is not specifically trained in the law cannot begin to know what all of their rights are without the assistance of a professional. Here at Steven Bilkis and Associates, we provide Truck Accident Attorneys, Injury Lawyers, Big Rig Jackknife Injury Attorneys, and 18 Wheeler Crash Injury lawyers. Commercial Truck Accident Lawyers will stand by you and ensure that your rights are protected. Wrongful Death Attorneys can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are considered. We make sure that you are rightfully awarded compensation for your suffering.

Continue reading

Published on:

On January 9, 1960 an owner of a gasoline station in The Bronx, New York. On this date, the gasoline delivery truck arrived to fill the underground tanks. There is an asphalt area on the side of the station to provide the delivery truck with a safe location to pump out the fuel. The delivery trucks are not supposed to be on the concrete customer pavilion at any time. While the delivery truck is delivering the fuel, the owner would go out to the customer pavilion to be available in case of emergency since it took about an hour for the fuel delivery.

On the date of the commercial truck accident, the owner of the station was attending to a customer at the service island by pumping the gasoline into the customer’s car. The delivery truck was on the asphalt section delivering the gasoline. When the tanks were full, the driver got in and decided to cut through the concrete customer pavilion section rather than exit out of the station through the asphalt delivery side. He had failed to secure the handles to the bulk box compartment swinging doors on the side of the truck prior to pulling off. In fact, he stated that he did not even know that the owner was out on the customer pavilion and thought that he was still in the office area.

As the truck pulled past the owner of the station, he was struck in the rear end by one of the bulk box compartment doors that were sticking out. The force of the blow spun him around and into the rear tires of the delivery truck. A witness grabbed him and pulled him free of the wheels. This accident resulted in serious injury to the gasoline station owner. A lawsuit was filed by the gasoline station owner against the delivery truck driver and the company that the delivery truck driver works for.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

On July 2, 1955 at around four o’clock in the afternoon, a truck driver left the Twin Bridges bar and headed west on Route 11 between Mooers, New York, and Champlain, New York. At some point his truck came in contact with a vehicle that was eastbound. The eastbound vehicle was occupied by a male driver, his wife, two daughters, and his daughter in law. The Staten Island male driver of the car was killed in the commercial truck accident. The wife was still in the hospital and unable to testify at the time of trial. The daughters both claimed that they saw the truck shortly before impact cross over the center line of the road to sideswipe their vehicle. The daughter in law, who was seated directly behind the deceased driver stated that she had observed the truck cross the center line previously and then return to the correct side of the road. She stated that as the gap closed between the two vehicles, the driver of the truck crossed the center line again and this time hit their car with his truck.

The driver of the truck was criminally charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs and later Vehicular Homicide. He was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment. The jury was not privy to this information and although there was much discussion about the truck driver’s condition, there was no proof of his condition presented in the court. In fact, although it was pointed out that at the hospital following the accident, the truck driver’s blood was drawn and was given to the State Trooper, the results of that blood alcohol content kit was not discussed in the civil trial. There was not even a mention that it was or was not tested. If the jury had been told of his criminal charges and arrest, the inference could probably have been made.

However, as it stands, the victim’s family’s Westchester attorney only brought forth witnesses who could testify to the truck driver’s condition the night before while he was at the same bar. He had been so drunk that he had tossed his truck keys to another patron. He was described as being loud and boisterous and causing a scene. However it was pointed out that this was his normal demeanor even if he was sober. It was clear that he was asked to leave the bar.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Workmen’s Compensation Board has made an award to the Nassau widow of an employee who suffered a fatal coronary attack, which the Board found was causally related to injuries he sustained in an auto accident during the course of his employment.

According to records in court, the worker was operating his employer’s truck when it was struck by a United States mail truck. The impact caused him to be thrown to the pavement and he was unconscious for several minutes. He was taken to a hospital. The worker continued to do his regular work until his death several days later. According to a Suffolk doctor who was called at the worker’s residence, the worker was acutely ill and was suffering from severe chest pains. After the doctor administered morphine to the worker, he was rushed to the hospital where he died few hours after. The death certificate shows the cause of death to be coronary occlusion and coronary thrombosis.

At the hearing, two doctors presented conflicting testimony regarding the cause of the worker’s death. One doctor, testifying for the employer, said the worker’s heart and other contents of his chest cavity were shaken up by the truck accident but that the condition of the heart, arteries and thrombus was formed more than two weeks before the fatal attack. The doctor who testified for the widow said the force of the blow sustained by the worker when he was thrown from his truck may have produced heart injury.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

On November 4, 2003 at a construction site on Cantiague Rock Road in Hicksville, New York, an employee of a concrete company was injured. He was working as a concrete laborer on the site. His job on that day was to prepare a concrete frame for a lamp pole base in the parking lot area of the job site. While he was standing next to the hole that the lamp pole base was going to be put in, he was struck from behind. The blow knocked him in to the hole and caused him serious bodily injury. He never saw what struck him. Witnesses on the scene, however, stated that they observed the concrete laborer standing on the side of the hole placing the wooden frame. They stated that the concrete truck had begun to back up and apparently did not see the concrete laborer. The chute of the concrete truck was down in preparation for the pouring of the concrete into the hole. The chute struck the concrete laborer in the area of his upper back which pushed him in to the hole.

The Staten Island concrete laborer filed a law suit against the construction company, the property management company, the property owner, the concrete company’s independent contractors and the concrete company. Within the first year of the law suit, most of these companies were able to prove that they were not involved in the truck accident and had no liability connected with the accident. What was left was a lawsuit against the concrete company, the subcontractors of the concrete company, and the construction company.

The issues that are under evaluation in this suit are under Labor Law § § 240 (1), 200 and common law negligence claims. Also under consideration are Labor Law 241 (6) claims. The victim further alleges violations of the following Industrial Code regulations: 12 NYCRR §§ 23-1.23(a-c); 23-1.5(a-b); 23-1.5(c)(1,3); 23-1.7(b)(1)(I), 23-4.2(a, f-g); 23-9.7(d); 23-9.11(a).

Continue reading

Published on:

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.”

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Contact Information