Truck Accident Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: January 10, 2013

Falling debris causes major injuries to worker

by Stephen Bilkis

On July 2, 1998, the Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department of New York was called upon to decide the issues in a case possibly involving a commercial truck accident. On the date in question, an employee of a property management company was working in a 40 story building that was under construction. It was his responsibility to prepare the stock room and make sure that the tools required to operate the building were at hand. One of his duties was to read the water meters in the building. While he was walking along a sidewalk near the loading dock where the construction deliveries were made, a net that is suspended over this walkway to catch falling debris from the upper stories fell on him causing substantial physical injury.

There are numerous questions of fact as it regards the incidents in this case. Some of the witnesses claim that the accident was caused when a truck delivering glass to the site was backing along the side near where the net attaches to the building. They contend that a handle sticking up from the top of the truck snagged the netting and pulled the net down. Other witnesses state that the company that was hired to keep the debris removed from the net so that the net would not get weighted down failed in their duty to keep the net clean and the weight from debris piled up in the net caused the net to fall. Another theory is that the net fell frequently and was faulty.

The court was concerned with several of these issues. In particular they felt that the fact that the crank handles on the truck were enmeshed in the net following the accident did not demonstrate that the handles had snagged the net. They stated that it was not surprising that the crank handles should be enmeshed in a net that had fallen on the truck covering it.

Published on: January 7, 2013

On Sunday, March 28, 1982 a commercial truck accident occurred

by Stephen Bilkis

On Sunday, March 28, 1982 a commercial truck accidentoccurred in the Rotterdam Industrial Park in Schenectady County, New York. A part time employee of a transport company rented a truck from a local truck rental company and drove it to the industrial park on that date to collect a load of apace heaters that needed to be transported for shipment the following day. His nine year old son was with him in the rental truck, as was his employer. His employer’s 16 year old son and a friend of his arrived shortly thereafter in the employer’s personal car.

The Bronx employer got out of the truck at the industrial park office. The employee, his son and the two teenaged boys continued to the bay where the space heaters were located. The employee backed up the truck to about a foot or so from the building. He stated that the left just enough room for a person to get by while loading the truck. He then left the truck in reverse, but turned the ignition off. They began to load the truck.

While loading the truck, the employer’s 16 year old son decided that they needed music. He went in to the passenger compartment of the rented truck and tried to turn on the radio. It would not work. He then decided that the ignition must have to be on in order for the radio to work. He turned the ignition key and the truck came on. It lurched backward three times because it was in gear. By that time, the employer had gotten to the location. He jumped into the truck and turned it off.

Published on: January 5, 2013

35-year old man was returning, one December day, by car from New England

by Stephen Bilkis

A 35-year old Queens man was returning, one December day, by car from New England with his wife when he met an accident. According to the man’s testimony, he had a slight collision with a van in the entrance ramp of the Bruckner Expressway. The collision resulted in locked bumpers. The two drivers exited their vehicles to disengage their bumpers. The next recollection, the man said he was waking up on the ground.

The man’s wife, now deceased, testified at an examination before trial that while she was watching her husband dislodge the bumper, a tire rolled past and hit him in the back, rendering him unconscious. She stated that the tire was traveling so fast, she thought that it killed him. The wife first saw the tire when it was about five feet away from her husband, and did not see where it came from. According to records in court, the tire had an identification tag stapled just below the tread. The tag bore the name of a tire manufacturing company.

The man filed an action against the van owner and the tire manufacturing company to recover damages for the personal injuries he sustained as a result of the accident. The tire manufacturing company moved to dismiss the action complaining that the evidence presented failed to establish any negligence on its part, and failed to connect it with the offending tire. The trial court granted the motion.

Published on: January 3, 2013

A wife, on behalf of the estate of her late husband, commenced an action

by Stephen Bilkis

A wife, on behalf of the estate of her late husband, commenced an action against the owners of the Westchester company employing the husband, a truck company and a steel company, to recover money damages for the wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering of her husband.

According to sources, the husband was severely injured in the course of his employment during tree cutting and removal operations when he was struck by a tree trunk which was suspended from a crane and wire rope, which were designed, manufactured and sold and distributed to his employee by the defendant companies. He died as a result of those injuries. The husband’s employer, a business involved in the storage and transportation of bleachers, was clearing property leased by it from the couple to create storage space for bleachers.

The New York Labor Law imposes a non-delegable duty on owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection to workers making them “responsible for a breach of the requirements of the statute irrespective of their control or supervision of the work site.” While the duty imposed by the law may not be delegated, the burden may be shifted to the party actually responsible for the accident either by way of claim of apportionment of damages under certain rules or by contractual language requiring indemnification by the injured worker’s employer.

Published on: December 31, 2012

This is a case between two establishments, a service station and a flower shop

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case between two establishments, a service station and a Bronx flower shop, as well as the insurance companies of each of these two establishments and is about the commercial truck accident, which occurred in the flower shop and in the service station.

The owner of the truck is a couple who has been a regular customer of the service station for quite a long time. When the male owner died, the female owner wanted the truck to be sold for $100. She asked the male manager of the service station to sell the truck. He agreed to do so and went to the residence of the owners to retrieve the truck. Because the car couldn’t start, he towed the car to his service station, all with the permission and consent of the female owner.

After the male manager had repaired the car, he placed a “for sale” sign on the car and parked it on the southern side of the service station. The truck’s front end was facing the northern part towards the flower shop. Te flower shop was adjacent to the service station’s north line. The truck was parked on that area for two to three weeks, before the commercial truck accident happened.

Published on: December 28, 2012

Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Hartford Co.) motions an order

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Hartford Co.) motions an order, in pursuit of CPLR 3212, which aims to dismiss the complaints of a truck driver and his wife, plaintiffs, on the specific ground that plaintiff is not actually insured under that of Hartford Co.’s insurance product and that he was not in fact an occupant of the insured truck at the time that the commercial truck accident happened. The Manhattan plaintiffs contradicted Hartford Co.’s expressed motion for summary judgment and made a cross motion for an order in pursuit of CPLR 3212, which purports to grant them summary judgment on the grounds of liability and goes down into the actual computation of damages and consequently in aid of NYCRR 60-2.3, which deems Hartford Co. to have given due consent in the aforesaid action amounting to a total of $25,000.

The aforesaid instant action is geared on uninsured motorist benefits wanted by the complainant in lieu with the said motor vehicle accident which took place on May 13, 2004 when the plaintiff, who stood outside of the delivery truck that he used for his job on making beer deliveries to various establishments, was suddenly hit by a box truck and was injured as he was pushed in between the box truck and his own delivery truck in the 18-wheeler crash. Following the aforesaid accident, Countrywide Insurance, the insurance carrier for the owner of the box truck, offered the full policy payment amounting to that of $25,000 to plaintiff. Subsequently, in accordance to filing a demand for settlement, the plaintiff then filed the aid instant lawsuit which seeks to recover underinsured motorist benefits that is under the SUM certification of the said policy which was issued by Hartford Co. to the employer of the complainant, Windmill Distributing Company, LP, which is doing business under the name of Phoenix Beverages, Inc. (Phoenix), that actually insured the said delivery truck which the plaintiff used in order to make deliveries. The Hartford Co. Policy actually provides underinsured motorist benefits which amounts to $1 million to the insured person as well as to any other occupant of a motor vehicle that is supposedly insured for SUM on the said policy.

In the statement given, the plaintiff further attested that he was actually newly employed by Phoenix on the day the accident happened. His job routine task at that time comprises of mainly driving the beer delivery truck as well as distributing the beer products to different establishments which includes beer distributors as well as bars. On that fateful day where he acquired personal injury in the accident, he went on the assigned delivery route which he was assigned to cover for a week.

Published on: December 22, 2012

The complainant is pleading the Court to release an Order

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: December 19, 2012

On August 24, 1950 a truck was involved in an accident that resulted in a personal injury claim

by Stephen Bilkis

On August 24, 1950 a truck was involved in an accident that resulted in a personal injury claim. An action was commenced in the Supreme Court of Kings County for review. The elements of this case are that following the accident, the Brooklyn insurance company for the truck contacted the insured person who had been driving the truck and told him that he was not going to be covered in the accident. The insurance policy had been purchased about four weeks prior to the accident and was supposed to be in effect for one year.

However, 21 months after the truck accident and an entire year after the notice of a lawsuit action had been served; the insurance company contacted the driver and informed him that at the time of the accident, his insurance had lapsed due to a suspension and that the insurance company would not be covering the accident. The date that the accident occurred was in the early part of the policy and clearly within bounds of being covered by that policy. The driver of the truck filed a lawsuit to make the company supply the insurance coverage that he had paid for.

The Supreme Court stated that after a review of the evidence in this case, there was no evidence that either the driver or anyone on behalf of the driver authorized suspension of the policy. Further, they could find no one in the insurance company who had authorized a suspension of the policy at any time and certainly not during the time span that covered the accident in question.

Published on: December 17, 2012

A taxi cab and a truck were both travelling on Second Avenue

by Stephen Bilkis

On April 20, 1972 a taxi cab and a truck were both travelling on Second Avenue near 70th Street. The two vehicles collided and the taxi was pushed up onto the sidewalk where it hit a woman. The woman was severely injured and her leg had to be amputated. The jury in the initial trial awarded the woman $800,000 from the taxi company. No compensation was demanded of the truck company whose truck was at fault for the accident in question.

The Court stated that:

‘Whatever version of the accident is accepted in whole or in part, or in combination, the conclusion is inescapable that the truck driver failed to maintain that degree of control over his vehicle and that degree of alertness to conditions of traffic surrounding him, which it was his legal obligation to maintain under the conditions prevailing at the time and place of the accident.’

Published on: December 14, 2012

This case is fairly straightforward

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is fairly straightforward. It involves a truck accident which happened in the afternoon of October 1958. A panel truck was parked at the curb between an X-ray mobile truck parked in front of it and an unoccupied car parked behind it.

As the Nassau driver of the panel truck maneuvered to drive away from the curb, he first backed the truck for a distance of several feet. The right rear bumper of the truck accidentally caught onto the left front bumper of the car behind it so that as the driver drove the truck forward, the car was pulled along and propelled into the rear of the X-ray mobile truck in which the complainant was waiting to be X-rayed.

The Suffolk complainant requests the court for a summary judgment against the owners of the truck and its driver (who however died before the summons and complaint could be served to him). They also request for immediate assessment of damages by a jury. The owners of the truck, the defendants, moves that the plaintiffs be prevented from presenting a bill of particulars to the jury since they failed to provide this before initiating the demand.