Articles Posted in Car Accidents in New York

Last week, the U.S. Justice Department announced that Toyota will pay 1.2 billion dollars in fines to settle a four year long criminal probe commenced by the Justice Department arising out of sudden acceleration problems that caused the wrongful death of occupants of Toyota vehicles highlighted by a tragic crash in August of 2009. The acceleration issues were caused by improper floor mats which would get jammed with the accelerator, as well as defective gas pedals. Initially, Toyota made the extremely poor decision to blame many of the accidents on “driver error”, but it became apparent from a safety point of view and the public relations debacle that ensued that this was a very bad strategy, indeed.

The 1.2 billion dollar penalty is by far the largest ever paid by an automobile manufacturer to settle a criminal investigation. In addition to the huge monetary penalty, Toyota has agreed to have a monitor to oversee its safety communications, its response to accident reports and to review its processes for issuing safety bulletins. Previously, Toyota had paid much smaller fines of 16.375 million in 2010 for delay in reporting pedal and floor mat defects, and $17.35 million in 2012 in a separate safety recall.

The sudden acceleration issues came to Toyota’s attention in 2009 with numerous reports of “runaway cars.” This was highlighted by a particularly tragic accident in San Diego in August of 2009 when five people were killed as the result of an improper floor mat which trapped the accelerator in a 2009 Lexus ES. In that accident, 911 recordings caught in horrific detail the occupants’ ordeal as the vehicle accelerated to 113 mph before flying into an embankment.

Part of the federal investigation examined whether Toyota had provided false and/ or misleading statements to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) when it was investigating the sudden acceleration issues several years ago. At that time, Toyota recalled approximately 8.1 million vehicles. Toyota still faces enormous costs in defending against hundreds of personal injury lawsuits that have been consolidated in California state and federal courts, in which settlement talks are proceeding. Bloomberg reported that 131 of approximately 300 cases have been settled in principle for undisclosed sums, as is always the case in settlement with corporations, which require confidentiality agreements. Further, last year Toyota agreed to pay about 1 billion dollars to owners of Toyota vehicles who alleged that their vehicles lost value as a result of the safety recalls. Between personal injury, wrongful death, and warranty claims, and the deal with the federal government, Toyota has paid approximately $3 billion. However, analysts estimate that the company may earn as much as $19 billion in the 2014 fiscal year.

There is no doubt that the Toyota criminal penalties and poor response to the safety issues in 2009 led to GM’s decision last month to commence massive recalls of 2005-2009 Cobalts, Ions, and Pontiacs with defective ignition switches resulting in many deaths and serious injuries from the loss of power to safety systems, in particular, power steering and airbags. Certainly, the fact that Congress intends to conduct hearings into GM’s ignition switch safety recalls also contributed to GM’s strategy. Further, GM’s sudden change in strategy to attempt resolution of many of the personal injury and wronged death claims is undoubtedly influenced by Toyota’s maladroit response to its safety recalls and the aftermath, which resulted in a huge payout to the feds that GM is seeking to avert.

Perhaps the Toyota and GM safety issues, which have cost countless lives and resulted in grievous injuries, will now be the impetus for the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which failed to pass the Congress in 2010. Under this long overdue and sensible legislation, fought and defeated by auto industry lobbyists and their cronies in Congress, more funds would be provided to the NHTSA to investigate automobile defects; publicize a database of early warnings that auto manufacturers issue to the government; and authorize the agency to assess larger fines against corporations that fail to timely recall defective automobiles.

Continue reading

The No-Fault Law is an absolute albatross around the necks of injured people and their attorneys in New York State, and has been so since its implementation in 1974. The basic purpose of the law when it was promulgated was twofold: to allow for the expeditious handling of automobile accident claims which were deemed to meet what is known as the “no-fault threshold”, and second, to root out what was perceived to be fraudulent, non meritorious claims. One of the main reasons that this antiquated law needs to be significantly modified in 2013 is that when the law was placed into effect, there were no MRI’s, CAT Scans, and other radiological examinations which could conclusively determine whether the injured driver or passenger had suffered a “soft tissue” (cartilage, ligament, tendon, spinal disc) injury . Thus, the inclusion of a fracture as a “no-fault threshold” injury, (because this injury could be determined by x-rays), but not, for example, a herniated disc of the neck or back, or a torn tendon or ligament.

Thus, as the No-Fault law presently exists, a fractured toe or pinky automatically meets the requirements of a no-fault “threshold” injury, but a person who suffers a torn tendon, ligament, cartilage or other “soft tissue” injury such as a herniated disc, which is in all likelihood, much more serious than a broken toe (for which there is no treatment), may have no case under the No-Fault law!

The No-fault threshold includes several very specific injuries suffered in motor vehicle accidents, as well as three general types of injuries contained in three sections of the statute which are poorly worded, confusing, and constitute a huge percentage of the litigation instituted by the no-fault insurance companies and their lawyers in contesting No-fault claims. The definitive sections are as follows:

Death;
Dismemberment;
Significant disfigurement;
A fracture;
Loss of a fetus;

Permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system.

The problems arise in interpreting the following three sections: 1) “permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; 2) “significant limitation of use of a body function or system”; and 3) “a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person’s usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment.” That last section is a true example of legislators gone amok.

The problems arise in the interpretation of many of the terms—for example, what is “significant limitation of use”? Isn’t that different for each person who is injured in an accident? What is a “consequential limitation”? What are the “material acts which constitute a person’s usual and customary daily activities”? As can be seen, the vague and inconsistent terminology utilized by the drafters of the No-Fault Law was fraught with difficulty from the inception of the statute, almost forty years ago.

Another problem that has arisen, and which brings us to the point of this article, is interpretations of the law by judges (seemingly supportive of the insurance industry) adding in requirements which were never part of the original statute, and which make claims and cases even more difficult to settle or win in Court. The Ramkumar decision is a classic example of this. In this case, the plaintiff was cut off from treatment by his own no-fault insurance company after only five months of treatment, despite the fact that he had suffered a torn meniscus in the accident in question, for which he required surgery. The lower Court dismissed his case, stating that he had not properly offered documentary evidence and a sufficient explanation for why he didn’t continue treatment after his no-fault insurance company had terminated his benefits. Essentially, the lower Court ruled that after the no-fault carrier booted him from coverage, Mr. Ramkumar was required to either continue treatment with his health insurance company, or if no health insurance was available, provide a “reasonable explanation” why he didn’t pay for his treatment out of his own pocket. Of course, nowhere in the antiquated No-Fault law is this requirement included. Fortunately, the majority in the Court of Appeals noted that although a plaintiff is required to have some explanation why he stopped treatment for his injuries after only five months, not having health insurance nor money to pay for medical treatment out of his pocket WAS a reasonable explanation. Further, the Court stated that the case should not have been dismissed because the evidence showed that the treating surgeon found that the meniscus permanently lost stability due to scar tissue, which Mr. Ramkumar will have for the remainder of his life.

The other irony here is that the no-fault carriers send injured victims of car accidents to no fault “IME”S (Independent medical examinations, which are anything but independent) within weeks, and sometimes days, after car accidents, to be conducted by “examiners” who are paid for by the no-fault insurance companies for a specific purpose—to find that there is nothing wrong with the injured person, thus permitting Allstate, State Farm, Geico, Progressive et. al. to stop paying for treatment. Of course, this is exactly what happened with Mr. Ramkumar, although he was fortunate enough to have obtained five months of treatment before thrown off coverage by the insurance carrier he was paying premiums to.

The moral of this story is simple. If you really want to root out fraud, call, fax, email or text your local legislator (if you are fortunate enough to have a cell phone number for the legislator) with a simple message. The No-fault law is unfair. It is outdated. When it was written, there was no means to determine if someone had suffered a “soft tissue” injury, but in case you missed it, now we have MRI’s, CAT Scans, Bone Scans, EMG’s, and numerous other tests for these injuries. The No-Fault law protects the car insurance companies at the expense of innocent victims of automobile accidents. If you want to examine fraud, take a look at no-fault exams by insurance company doctors, who perform dozens of three minute “exams” each week on injured people with the conclusions in their reports written before the person walks into the examiner’s office.

Hopefully, if enough people do this, we will finally get traction with Governor Cuomo, who does not believe this is a problem, apparently.

Continue reading

On Sunday, July 8, 2012, there was a fatal accident on the Saw Mill Parkway in Yonkers near the Rumsey Road exit. At approximately 12:15 PM that Sunday, a Mercedes driven by 36 year old Kenyatta Garner of South Carolina was traveling northbound at a reportedly excessive speed when Garner struck a Honda Civic in the right lane and lost control of the vehicle. According to the Westchester County Police, the Garner vehicle then struck a center divider, hit an overpass for the eastbound Cross County parkway, and flipped over numerous times. According to a police spokesman, the Mercedes then “disintegrated”, with twisted metal, debris, and a trail of bodies left behind.

Two passengers in the Garner vehicle were killed when they were ejected from the car: Tony Fortune, 46, and Shanikka Hunter, 28, both of the Bronx. Mr. Fortune was a front seat passenger who was reportedly ejected from the sunroof, and Ms. Hunter was a rear seat passenger. It is believed that neither Mr. Fortune nor Ms. Hunter were wearing seat belts. The other three occupants of the car also suffered serious injuries and were hospitalized at Jacobi Medical Center in the Bronx, with one listed as critical. However, the extent of their injuries has not yet been disclosed.

The driver of the Honda Civic initially struck by the Mercedes, 23 year old Benjamin Ferder of New Rochelle, was fortunately not seriously injured, and was treated and released from Jacobi Medical Center.

The Saw Mill Parkway is one of a group of Westchester County Roadways which is particularly dangerous, (along with the Bronx River Parkway and Hutchinson River Parkway), in that the roadway is narrow, a large portion of the roadway has no shoulders, and there are many short entrances to the parkway making it very difficult to merge with traffic already flowing at 60-70 m.p.h. The Saw Mill Parkway is approximately 30 miles in length, beginning from the Henry Hudson Parkway in Yonkers to I-684 in Bedford. Since 1980, the parkway has been maintained by the New York State DOT, and approximately 95,000 vehicles use the parkway on a daily basis. Construction of the parkway began in 1926, when vehicles were obviously a lot smaller and didn’t travel at speeds over 60 miles per hour. World War II put a halt to construction for a few years in the 1940’s. Widening the parkway was considered in the 1950’s and 1960’s but never happened, and vehicles clearly are travelling at faster speeds than ever with distracted driving becoming a bigger issue, adding to the dangers overall.

It is likely that the final determination of the Westchester County Police will be that the primary factor in this horrific car accident was excessive speed, and certainly toxicology tests will be done to examine whether intoxication played a role. However, there is no doubt that the configuration and narrow boundaries of the Saw Mill Parkway add to the dangers of high speed driving on this roadway. At some point in the future, maybe the issue of widening this well traveled parkway will be reconsidered and implemented.

Continue reading

26 year old Rachel Fraulo of Westport, Connecticut recently commenced a “Liquor liability” lawsuit against an out of business Mount Kisco tavern, O’Malley’s, and its two owners in Federal Court in White Plains arising out of a serious car crash in January of 2009. She alleges that as a result of the accident, she suffered traumatic brain injury (TBI), permanent vision impairment, several fractured bones and neck injuries. The facts are as follows. At approximately 3:30 AM on January 11, 2009, Rachel Fraulo was a passenger in an automobile driven by her friend Brian Vittorini, 34, when the vehicle driven by Vittorini struck a guardrail at the end of the southbound exit ramp on I-684 in Katonah, adjacent to Route 35.

The suit charges that prior to the accident, Vittorini was visibly intoxicated after having consumed “dozens” of Jack Daniels and Coke cocktails at O’Malley’s. Under the New York State Dram Shop Act, if it can be proven that the bar’s employees served Vittorini alcohol after observing that he was “visibly intoxicated”, and he then drove while intoxicated and caused injuries to his passenger, the bar would have liability under the Dram Shop Act.

At the time of the accident, Mr. Vittorini refused a blood alcohol test, and the Bedford Police Chief determined that the accident was caused by a combination of speed, alcohol and failure to wear seat belts. Subsequently, Vittorini pled guilty to charges of vehicular assault and driving while intoxicated. Importantly for Ms. Fraulo’s case, those convictions can be introduced into evidence during a trial of the case, with obviously significant impact on a jury when they have to determine fault. Apparently, Ms. Fraulo previously reached an undisclosed financial settlement with the insurance company representing Mr. Vittorini. If a jury were to decide that Mr. Vittorini was primarily at fault for the accident, there would have to be a determination by the Court as to how this previous settlement affects any damages awarded by the jury. In sum, a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit is not entitled to receive what is called a “double recovery”, meaning that the plaintiff cannot get damages for the same injuries twice. However, the plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for all potential damages, including pain and suffering, loss earnings, lost earnings potential, medical and hospital expenses, both past and present, and “loss of enjoyment of life.”

In opposition to Ms. Fraulo’s case, the defense has undoubtedly asserted a “seat belt defense.” If they can prove, through expert testimony, that Ms. Fraulo was not wearing her seat belt at the time of the accident, and can demonstrate that some or all of the injuries suffered by Ms. Fraulo would have been avoided or lessened if she were wearing her seat belt, her damages will be reduced by the percentage of her own fault for failure to comply with section 1229-c of the Vehicle & Traffic Law, which mandates that seat belts be worn by drivers and passengers of motor vehicles.

The defense will further claim that Ms. Fraulo was also intoxicated, and should not have entered the vehicle with Mr. Vittorini knowing that he was intoxicated. It is unclear whether they will be able to prove this defense or not, but it can be particularly damaging if the jury is convinced that Ms. Fraulo was at fault for entering the car knowing that Mr. Vittorini was “visibly intoxicated.”

One other point which can be a significant issue in this case is whether O’Malley’s had a liability insurance policy which contained a provision for Dram Shop or Liquor Liability coverage. This type of insurance is very expensive, and in my experience, many bars and nightclubs do not carry Dram Shop insurance for that reason. If O’Malley’s did not have Dram Shop coverage, Ms. Fraulo also has a claim against the two owners of the bar, ostensibly to assert a claim against their assets if they were uninsured for the accident. I would assume that prior to commencing a case in federal Court, Ms. Fraulo’s attorneys have determined that either O’Malley’s has sufficient insurance coverage, or that the owners have assets to make the lawsuit worth pursuing.

The case has been adjourned to October of 2012 for trial of this action after a hearing this month. We will follow this case when it commences in October.

Continue reading

On March 29, 2012, at approximately 2:30 AM, off duty Mount Vernon Police Officer Reginald Velez was killed when he drove his vehicle the wrong way on the southbound lanes of I-95 and his vehicle was struck by a tractor-trailer. An investigation of the causes of the fatal car accident by the NYPD continues, as does the local police investigation. It has been reported that prior to the 2:30 AM accident, Officer Velez had been to the Isla Verde bar in the Bronx, as well as to a local diner with friends, although it is unknown at this time whether Velez had anything of an alcoholic nature to drink at Isla Verde.

In recent years, there have been a multitude of wrong way accidents on Westchester Parkways and highways, most notably being the July, 2009 tragic accident involving Diane Schuler, who drove southbound in the northbound lanes of the Taconic Parkway with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.18%, more than double the legal limit. Schuler was driving with her infant daughter, five year old son, and three nieces in the car. She hit a northbound vehicle head on, causing the death of the three men in the northbound car, her daughter, three nieces, and her own death.

Until toxicology results are obtained (most likely by mid May), it will be unknown if alcohol played any role in Velez’ untimely death. His fiancee has stated that she believed fatigue (due to many hours of overtime) was a significant factor in the accident. Further, a bartender at Isla Verde was quoted as saying that Velez “did not ask me for for anything and didn’t drink.” However, there is no question that the bar could face civil liability under the New York Dram Shop Law to members of Velez’ family (not his fiancee as she was not his wife at the time of the accident) if it is found that the bar served Velez alcohol while he was “visibly intoxicated” and that this intoxication led directly to Velez’ fatal accident. Therefore, the statements of the waitress must be considered within the context of the possibility of a possible lawsuit.

The NY City Medical Examiner concluded that Officer Velez died of blunt force trauma to his torso. Upon impact, Velez’ 2002 white Lexus sedan burst into flames. The driver of the tractor-trailer, who was uninjured, noted that he had no time to avoid the accident, which occurred near exit 11 on the northbound lanes of I-95.

We will report further on the release of the toxicology results.

Continue reading

In a story by Heidi Evans in the March 11, 2012 edition of the New York Daily News, it was reported that passengers in New York City taxicabs are suffering numerous facial injuries due to their failure to utilize rear seat belts. For some reason, many people (this writer included) seem to have a different perspective on car safety when they are in a taxi cab (ignoring seat belts) than when they drive themselves and are more vigilant about seat belt usage.

The issue is compounded by the fact that New York City cabbies frequently drive quite aggressively, make short stops, exceed the speed limit, pass on the right, and cut in and out of lanes. These dangerous maneuvers occur while the driver is attempting to avoid other traffic, bicyclists, pedestrians, and buses.

Pedestrians are suffering facial injuries after striking the glass partition, including broken noses, fractured teeth, abrasions and even brain trauma after a short stop or collision with another vehicle. The distance between the partition and the passengers can be no more than 16 to 19 inches, not much space when the taxi comes to a sudden stop. Rear passengers are routinely being treated at NYC emergency rooms after striking their faces on cup holders, sharp edged credit card machines, change cups and steel bolts.

Dr. Lewis Goldfrank, the chairman of the emergency departments at Bellevue Hospital and NYU Langone, walks to work each day rather than take taxis after observing the severe injuries suffered by taxi passengers he encounters in his daily experience. He states that the only time he noticed a reduction in injuries was at the inception of the TLC campaign airing recordings of Joe Torre, Ed Koch and other prominent New Yorkers reminding passengers to “buckle up.”

Cab drivers quoted in the article blame riders, noting that they are often oblivious, focused more on their smart phones than taking the time to put on their seat belts. Evans reports that there are 485,000 daily cab rides in New York City by 13,237 yellow taxis, with the vast majority being safe. However, a TLC survey reportedly reveals that 2 out of 3 rear seat passengers don’t use seat belts.

Mayor Bloomberg’s effort to create a uniform taxi fleet includes new taxis next month, which will be equipped with a purportedly safer partition, subject to federal crash testing for the first time. However, in addition to making partitions safer, and removing sharp objects such as credit card machines, cup holders and steel bolts, clearly there must be a renewed effort to ensure that passengers use seat belts if the hope is to improve safety in NYS taxicabs.

Continue reading

In a report by the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), which reviewed data for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, fatal accidents involving 16 and 17 year old drivers increased 11% for the first six months of 2011. This trend, if determined to be the same for the second half of the year, would end an 8 year period of decline in deaths of teen drivers.

Total deaths of 16 and 17 year old drivers during the first half of 2011 increased from 190 in 2010 to 211 in 2011. More specifically, there was an increase in 16 year old fatalities from 80 to 93, and an increase in 17 year old deaths from 110 to 118. There were increases in 23 states, 19 states had reductions in deaths, and 8 states along with the District of Columbia did not have a change in the first six months of 2010 and 2011. The states with the biggest increases in fatalities were Florida, Texas and North Carolina.

The increase in teen deaths is in contrast with data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which has released an estimate that total motor vehicle deaths in the first half of 2011 decreased approximately 0.9%.

The author of the GHSA study, Dr. Allan Williams, has attributed the teen driver fatality increases to a leveling off of the benefit of Graduated Driver Licensing Laws, now that these laws have been in effect for several years. Additionally, Dr. Williams points to an improving economy as another factor to the statistics, with more teen drivers on the road. The GHSA suggests ways to combat this disturbing trend, which include improvements in driver education, parental involvement in establishing safe driving habits for their children, and strengthening traffic regulations. One concrete and absolute measure is to absolutely prohibit the use of any hand held cell phone or electronic device while driving, which is already illegal in the State of New York.

For example, texting while driving is now a primary traffic infraction in New York State (meaning that the investigating police officer does not need to find another violation such as speeding or following too closely to issue a texting while driving ticket). Texting while driving now leads to 3 points on the driver’s license, and fines with surcharge of approximately $235.00.

Traffic deaths will generally rise in the second half of the year, due to summer driving, vacations, and holidays known for higher accident levels including July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Continue reading

In an analysis of fatal car crashes across the United States for the years 2009 to 2010, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that 19 states had an increase in fatalities. However, there were a total of 32,885 traffic deaths in 2010, which was actually a decrease of 2.9% overall from the 33,883 deaths which occurred in 2009. The biggest increase in auto fatalities was seen in Connecticut, where there was an increase of 42% with 224 deaths in 2009 and 319 in 2010. Connecticut officials claim that to form a correct determination, a study should be conducted over a 3-5 year period, because there was a 26% decrease in fatalities from 2008 to 2009 when the economy was at its worst with the onset of the recession.

Other states which had the largest increases in fatalities between 2009 and 2010 were in New Hampshire (16%); Wyoming (16%); Kansas (12%), and Indiana (8.8%). The states with the largest increase in fatal car crashes between 2009 and 2010 were Connecticut, with 95 more deaths, Michigan, with 70 more, Pennsylvania (68 ), Indiana (61) and Ohio with an increase of 58.

Thirty one states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had reductions in the numbers of traffic deaths between 2009 and 2010. California had the most substantial decrease in fatalities, from 3,090 in 2009 to 2,715 in 2010, which was a 12% decrease. Interestingly, due to the volume of drivers in California as compared to the entire pool of drivers in the United States, California’s 12% drop in deaths accounted for 37% of the national decrease.

California’s 2,715 fatalities were the lowest in the state since 1944, according to the California Office of Traffic Safety. They attribute the substantial decrease to high visibility police enforcement, DWI checkpoints, public awareness programs, safer vehicles, improved road design, quicker EMS response and their statewide safety plan.

Deaths due to DWI decreased 4.9% nationwide in 2010 from 2009. There were 10,228 fatalities in 2010, which accounted for 31% of the overall nationwide deaths, a slight decrease from the 32% in 2009 when there were 10,759 alcohol related deaths in the United States.

Here in New York, the NHTSA study shows that there were 1,158 fatalities in 2009 and 1,200 in 2010, a 3.6% increase. Alcohol accounted for 318 deaths in 2009 and 364 in 2010, so that there was an increase from 27% to 30% of alcohol being the causative factors in road fatalities between 2009 and 2010 in New York.

From 2000 through 2010, fatal car accidents decreased in 47 states and Washington D.C., and increased in Delaware, Connecticut and Hawaii.

Continue reading

A recent decision by the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest Court, in the case of Lifson v City of Syracuse and Klink highlights the “emergency doctrine”, which can have a huge effect in motor vehicle accident cases, as it did in this case. Irene Lifson, along with the defendant Derek Klink both worked in the MONY Plaza, a large office building in Syracuse, New York. On February 29, 2000, at approximately 4:00 PM, Mr. Klink made a left turn heading westbound near the building where many employees cross the street to get retrieve their cars. As he was making his left turn, Mr. Klink claimed that he was momentarily blinded by the sun, and his vehicle struck and killed Ms. Lifson.

During the wrongful death trial, Klink’s attorney requested that the jury being given the emergency charge, which states in essence that if a driver is confronted with a “sudden and unexpected” condition, not of his or her own making, which leaves little or no time for deliberation, the driver may not be held responsible if his or her actions were reasonable under the circumstances. Giving a jury the emergency instruction is a very powerful and persuasive advantage for a defendant, since it provides the jury with a means to absolve the defendant of all responsibility for his or her negligence, and coming from the presiding judge, implies (even if not intended this way) that the judge believes that an emergency existed at the time of the accident.

This is exactly what occurred in the lower Court trial in the Lifson case, as the jury decided that Mr. Klink had been faced with a sudden emergency of sun glare in his eyes, and the jury decided that the accident was primarily the fault of Irene Lifson and to a smaller extent, the City of Syracuse. However, in a decision written by Judge Lippman, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, the Court reversed the lower Court decision and remanded the Lifson case for a new trial. The rationale for the reversal was that this was not a sudden, unforeseeable emergency that Mr. Klink was confronted with. Rather, at 4:00 PM. on a February day heading westbound, Mr. Klink should have anticipated that he would be faced with sun glare, and he could have taken measures to avoid this (including wearing sunglasses, although this was not mentioned specifically in the decision).

Thus, this was a circumstance of Mr. Klink’s own creation, and not a “sudden, unforeseeable, unexpected” emergency. Judge Lippman distinguished previous cases in which the Court did find a sudden emergency, including the numerous cases involving a child suddenly darting into traffic, leaving the driver no time to react before striking the child, which would constitute a true emergency. Another example of the possible applicability of the emergency doctrine would be cases of black ice when the roads are otherwise completely clear, and the weather is not a factor at the time of the accident.

In my own trial experience, there is a huge battle between plaintiff’s attorneys and defendant’s attorneys on the emergency charge, involving memoranda of law and oral argument, which was exemplified in the original case in Lifson. The charge gives the jury the impression, despite any efforts by the presiding judge to avoid this, that the defendant was confronted with conditions and circumstances that were not of his own creation. This often leads to “defense verdicts”, in which the injured victim is left with no compensation for substantial and sometimes fatal injuries. Luckily, in Lifson, Judge Lippman rectified an unfair and unjustified result from the lower Court, and a new jury will now decide the Lifson case.

Continue reading

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently released a study of seatbelt usage among all age groups and races around the United States. The study was conducted in June of 2009, and involved 70,493 occupants in 49,475 vehicles in 1,496 across the U.S. The study is known as the National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), performed by NHTSA”s National Center For Statistics and Analysis, and the focus is on seat belt use, motorcycle helmet use, child restraint use with children under the age of 8, and the use of electronic devices in vehicles.

One of the most significant findings of the most recent study is that seat belt use is lowest among those 16-24 years old. In that category, seat belt usage was at 81%. Those aged 70 and above had the highest usage with 86%, only a small percentage above 25-69 year olds, who wore their seat belts 84% of the time.
Males wear their seatbelts 81% of the time, whereas females are safer at 87%. African Americans wear their seatbelts at a 79% rate, which is a significant increase over the 75% that used the seatbelts in 2008. Caucasian seat belt usage was 84% in 2009, a small increase over the 83% observed in 2008.

Seat belt usage in rear seats has been tracked in this particular study since 2004, with only 70% of passengers in rear seats wearing their seatbelts, although this is a large increase from the 47% that wore seatbelts in the rear seats in 2004. Conversely, seat belt usage overall in front seats has been very consistent, with 80% using their seatbelts in 2004, and 84% wearing their seatbelts in the front seats in 2009. There is a significant difference between rear seat belt usage if the State’s law requires it, with 78% wearing their rear seat belts if the law requires this and only 64 % wearing rear seat belts if there is no regulation in place for rear seat belts.

Children between birth and age 7 are restrained at 88%, a slight increase over 2008 at 87%. The Midwest registered a substantial increase in seat belt usage for infants, from 85% in 2008 to 90% in 2009. Overall, the west had the highest seat belt use in the country, with 95% in 2009, and the south has the lowest, at 82%.

Continue reading