Truck Accident Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: February 5, 2013

A 20-year old teacher applied to the Long Island State Park Commission for a summer job

by Stephen Bilkis

A 20-year old Nassau teacher applied to the Long Island State Park Commission for a summer job. He worked as a laborer for the Commission at a warehouse in Jones Beach. One July day, the teacher was thrown off from a truckowned by the Commission after the axle of the truck broke. For the remainder of July and during the month of August that year, he did not work. For a six-week period, he was paid by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which paid for his hospital bill and the bill of his doctor. The teacher returned to his regular employment at a high school on Labor Day.

The teacher filed a suit to recover damages for the personal injuries he sustained as a result of the Truck accident. The teacher also asserted negligence claims against the State of New York and the beach authority.

The teacher testified that during the period of slightly less than three weeks that he worked, he had ridden on the running board, in the back of and inside the power vehicles that were used for transportation. On occasion, he had seen three people riding in the cab. He testified further that, because of the size of his two co-workers, there was no room for him in the cab on the day of the accident, because if he had entered the cab the driver would have been unable to shift gears.

Published on: February 3, 2013

Five are injured by tractor trailor

by Stephen Bilkis

A personal injury suit was commenced against a tractor-trailer and the employer of the driver after four adults and one infant, while passengers in an automobile, sustained injuries as a result of a truck accident. The Staten Island driver of the automobile in which they were passengers died as a result of his injuries. A collision occurred between the passenger car and a tractor trailer. The tractor trailer was under lease. This case was tried by the court without a jury and the question of contributory negligence is resolved in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed.

According to records in court, the trailer truck was without load and deadheaded westward bound from Clinton, New Jersey, to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It had been raining for some time prior to and at the time of the accident. The road surface was wet and visibility was fair. The accident occurred in the early morning about one o’clock. The sources said there was failure in the tractor trailer’s engines and the passenger automobile struck the tractor which rested in its pathway.

Under the Pennsylvania law, the presence of a vehicle on the wrong side of a highway is prima facie evidence of the driver’s negligence and the skidding or sliding of a vehicle of itself does not constitute negligence of the driver. It is thus incumbent upon the plaintiffs to prove that the skidding or sliding of the vehicle was due to the negligence of the driver. The operator of a motor vehicle is bound at all times to exercise reasonable care in its operation. As sliding or skidding of itself does not constitute negligence, something additional must be shown to justify a finding of negligence.

Published on: January 31, 2013

Widow is awarded money for husband’s demise

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: January 29, 2013

Telephone Co. truck injures eight year old

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: January 27, 2013

He was working as a concrete laborer on the site.

by Stephen Bilkis

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).

Published on: January 24, 2013

The complaint is premised on the electric company’s liability

by Stephen Bilkis

The records of the case relate that a Nassau landscape gardener who owned a tractor trailer ring was electrocuted when loading boom on the tractor trailer, which he was driving, stuck high tension wires owned by an electric company and located on the property of a certain resident. The administrator of the estate of the landscape gardener sued the electric company and the landowner for personal injuries and wrongful death.

The complaint is premised on the Suffolk electric company’s liability upon faulty maintenance and safety control of the high tension wires. The parties have stipulated that the wires were maintained by the electric company and that the conduct of the tractor trailer truck was not for the electric company’s use or benefit. The electric company was not a lessee or borrower of the tractor trailer. Significantly, it was agreed that the power for the tractor trailer came from that unit itself, and it was not connected to the electric company’s equipment for any power source.

Both contenders rely on the policy language, which provides that the insured includes the named insured, any partner or executive officer of the named insured, any other person while using an Owned automobile or a Hired automobile with the permission of the Named insured, and any other person or organization but only with respect to his or its liability because of acts or omissions of an insured.

Published on: January 22, 2013

Police woman is injured in a truck accident

by Stephen Bilkis

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.”

Published on: January 19, 2013

Vehicle in accident not covered by policy

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: January 17, 2013

Nissan driver loses control of car

by Stephen Bilkis

On October 24, 2009 at approximately 4:15 a.m. a Nissan was north bound on the Seaford Oyster Bay Expressway when the driver, the son of the owner, saw a license plate in the roadway and attempted to avoid hitting it. The Nissan swerved, lost control and then struck a concrete divider wall. The operator of the vehicle stated that following the one car accident, he collected the license plate and called a tow truck to come remove his vehicle.

Following the accident, the Suffolk operator of the Nissan discovered that the license plate had come from a vehicle that had been involved in an accident on the opposite side of the expressway six days earlier. He filed a lawsuit claiming that the tow truck company that had removed the driver’s vehicle from the first accident had not removed the debris from the roadway properly according to Traffic Law § 1219 (c ).

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1219 (c ) states that “[a]ny person removing a wrecked or damaged vehicle from a highway shall remove any glass or other injurious substance dropped upon the highway from such vehicle”. Several precedent cases were discussed with varying degrees of applications to the accident in question. Ultimately the question at hand deals with the liability of the tow truck driver or the owner of the vehicle from the previous accident to be responsible for any debris that was left in the roadway that could and did cause an additional accident.

Published on: January 13, 2013

Rental truck runs into rear of another vehicle

by Stephen Bilkis

On August 6, 2005 an employee of an ice company was driving a rental truck on Rout 25A at the intersection of Warner Road in Huntington, Long Island, New York at about ten in the morning when he ran into the rear end of another vehicle that was stopped at the traffic light.

In this case, the owner of the rental truck company is asking for a summary judgment relieving it from liability due to the coverage under the Graves Amendment that provides an owner of a vehicle that “is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles shall not be liable under any State law for damages sustained in a motor vehicle accident provided there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner.” (see, 49 USC § 30106[a])

The driver of the rental truck opposes this motion since he claims that when he attempted to stop the truck, he discovered that the truck’s brakes were faulty. He claims that his negligence to maintain the truck in a safe fashion removes any protections that the Graves Amendment would otherwise have provided to the truck rental company.