Skip to main content

Recent Developments: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court Decision Throwing Out Plaintiff's Car Accident Case

In a decision issued on March 25, 2015, the appeals court that covers Long Island and parts of NYC reversed a decision by a lower court that threw out a car accident case brought by an injured plaintiff.

The plaintiff was a passenger in a car that was struck in the rear by someone driving a vehicle with dealer plates for Bay Ridge Lexus. As is not unusual, the driver of the dealer car (who could be an employee or manager at Bay Ridge) apparently told the driver of the other car, no, don't call the cops; this is a dealer car; take your car to Bay Ridge, and they'll fix it. However, the plaintiff passenger was physically injured and eventually sued Bay Ridge, its related companies, and the other driver.

Because the cops were not called, and for whatever other reason, Bay Ridge had no record of the accident. The defendants then used this lack of a record on their end to make a motion to dismiss plaintiff's case. (Did they think the plaintiff was making the whole thing up?)

The defendants won before the lower court, and plaintiff's case was thrown out. But the appeals court said, no, you can't win on a motion to dismiss (called a motion for summary judgment when you argue the facts) just by pointing out holes in a plaintiff's case. Besides, witnesses in the front car saw that the car that hit them had Bay Ridge Lexus plates, and Bay Ridge admitted that it owns a car with those plates. We'll let a jury decide what happened.

The appeals court got it right. The lower court decision siding with the defendants was a bit baffling. And if you think you are injured in a car accident, you need to call the police so they can come and create an accident report. It would have avoided this entire mess.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Recent Cases: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court in Slip and Fall

In a decision issued on March 18, 2015 , a New York appeals court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old boy. He was injured when he slipped and fell on "loose and broken pieces of asphalt" as he was running towards an ice cream truck near an Ikea store in Brooklyn. There were two interesting things about the decision. First, like many slip and fall cases, the case turned on constructive notice--how long was the loose/broken asphalt on the ground before the accident so that the defendants should have seen it and corrected the dangerous condition? The appeals court said the defendants failed to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area, so they did not establish lack of constructive notice. The more interesting thing is that apparently the boy told staff at the hospital where he was taken that he tripped over his shoelaces. The defendants found this in the hospital records and basically said, "Ha! He di...
Post a Comment
Read more

Know Your Rights: New York's Consumer Protection Statute

Under New York law, there are several ways that consumers can recover damages (money) or other relief against businesses that ripped them off, deceived them, or otherwise treated them improperly. One of these ways is New York's Consumer Protection Statute (General Business Law § 349). Under GBL §349, a consumer can sue a business if he or she can show that the subject act or practice (1) was consumer-oriented; (2) was misleading in a material way; and (3) the consumer suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act. If successful, a consumer can recover their actual damages (money they lost), their reasonable attorney fees, and "treble" (triple) damages up to $1,000 (if the business acted willfully and knowingly in deceiving the consumer). The $1,000 cap on treble damages needs to be eliminated. It is no deterrent to businesses behaving badly. 
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Developments: Lawsuit Against School District for a Bus Monitor Abusing a Special Needs Child

The parents of a child "who suffers from severe mental disabilities" sued the Beacon City School District, in Dutchess County, alleging that a bus monitor physically and mentally abused their child. The parents sued the School District for, among other things, assault, battery, and negligent supervision. The case went through the fact-finding phase (called "discovery"), and the School District made a motion to dismiss at least some of the claims. The motion was granted, but an appeals court reversed the lower court.  The appeals court first noted that  [s]chools have a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision and  [t]he standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school's supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same...
Post a Comment
Read more