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

Respond to Demands for Evidence or Be Prepared to Have Your Case Thrown Out!

The evidence or fact-gathering phase of a lawsuit is called "discovery". Each party is entitled to demand various kinds of evidence from the other party or parties in preparation for a possible trial. Two common kinds of discovery demands are a "Demand for Discovery and Inspection" and "Interrogatories" (which are written questions, answered in writing, under oath). (Psst: Interrogatories are basically a waste of time, but that will be left for another day.) In a recent decision , a New York appeals court affirmed the ruling of a lower court, throwing out a case for plaintiff's failing to respond to defendants' discovery demands. In that case, an LLC sued an architecture firm for malpractice and breach of contract. During the discovery phase, defendants architects served plaintiff with a Demand for Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories. You only have 20 days to respond or object to discovery demands, or you lose a lot of rights in how yo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Law Update: FTC sues DIRECTV for Deceptive Business Practices

I'm sure most people think that "of course" big businesses are constantly, intentionally, ripping people off and are engaged in deceptive business practices. As a lawyer, my inclination is I can't believe a big business, with lots of executives and lots of lawyers looking things over, could possibly offer promos or services that are so misleading or deceptive that they are illegal. They can't possibly be that dumb. Sometimes I'm wrong. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has sued DIRECTV in San Francisco federal court for engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of federal law. DIRECTV was telling consumers, hey, look at our low monthly rates and look at all the great stuff you get, come sign up with us! However, DIRECTV failed to adequately disclose that, oh, by the way, in order to get that great deal, you have to sign a two-year contract; those low rates are only good for the first year; your monthly bill could go ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Dave & Buster’s Held Not Liable For Stabbing of Customer

When you operate a restaurant or a bar, etc., sometimes customers get attacked by other customers/patrons--for whatever reason. So when can the restaurant be held liable in situations like that? In what is a horrible story, in 2010, an 8-year-old boy was at a Dave & Buster’s with his family at The Source Mall in Westbury. The boy was playing a game when he was suddenly attacked and stabbed 5 times in the back by a 23-year-old man who testified in the case that he went there to stab someone.  [The man plead guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to 14 years in prison .] The boy (through his parents) sued the attacker (who has no money, I assume), Dave & Buster’s, and the Mall. The boy alleged Dave & Buster’s failed to provide adequate security, which would have prevented the attack. Dave & Buster’s got the case dismissed against them at the trial court level, and the boy appealed. In a recent decision, the Second Department affirmed that...
Post a Comment
Read more