New York Personal Injury Lawyers

Regulations and Legal Challenges in Truck Accident Litigation

By Dansker & Aspromonte

Related Posts

August 22, 2024

Successful NYC Truck Accident Cases

Categories

Navigating Truck Accident Litigation

Regulations and Legal Challenges in Truck Accident Litigation

According to the National Safety Council, 5,837 large trucks (meaning trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds) were involved in fatal crashes in 2022.1 Commercial trucking is undoubtedly a tough industry for drivers, but the difficulty of the work does not exempt them from their legal obligations to engage in safe trucking practices.

Truck accident litigation ensues when a truck driver or trucking company (also called a “carrier”) fails to follow safety laws pertaining to the industry. These cases are brought on behalf of individuals who were severely injured or even killed due to the truck driver’s or carrier’s negligent conduct.

These cases involve the complexities of the American tort system and trucking industry regulations. It is critical that a personal injury lawyer handling a trucking accident case understands the regulations—both those promulgated by the federal government and those issued by the state of New York—when building a case.

The legal challenges posed by truck accidents in New York City are not just a matter of legal doctrine. The investigation of these cases requires consistency, proactivity, and creativity on the part of the truck accident lawyer to avoid loss of physical evidence, obtain all relevant witness statements, and secure the correct documents held by regulatory bodies.

If you have been injured in a trucking accident, call the New York City commercial truck accident lawyers at Dansker & Aspromonte Associates. Our attorneys have significant experience litigating cases involving serious injuries or deaths caused by the negligent operation of semi-trucks. That experience has given our attorneys extensive knowledge of the regulations and relevant legal doctrines in these cases, and they know how to properly investigate your case to maximize the compensation you are owed under the law.

Understanding Trucking Regulations in New York City

In 2000, Congress established the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) as a stand-alone agency within the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999.2 The FMCSA’s primary mission is to reduce automotive crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses.

The FMCSA promulgates a complex system of rules and regulations known as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“FMCSR”) to govern commercial truckers and the industries employing them. These rules and regulations apply to commercial motor vehicles that are performing interstate operations. The FMCSA regulates many specific aspects of commercial trucking, but the following are the most common:

  1. Hours-of-Service Regulations are defined in the “Interstate Truck Driver’s Guide to Hours of Service” and governed by the federal regulatory code. Hours-of-service regulations set limits on when and how long professional drivers can operate to ensure they are awake and alert while driving, continuously working to reduce the possibility of driver fatigue.3
  2. Vehicle Maintenance Regulations set forth the maintenance standards for commercial motor vehicles, including requirements for specific brake systems, lights of a specific color and number, and the prevention of other mechanical defects.4
  3. Driver Qualifications are governed by the FMCSA’s regulations—and, as will be discussed, by state law. Specifically, the FMCSA mandates strict guidelines during the hiring process to ensure safety on America’s highways, placing compliance responsibilities on both the driver and the company employing him or her.5

But the FMCSA is not the only regulatory authority governing trucking accidents: the New York Department of Transportation (“NYDOT”) is also responsible for commercial motor vehicle safety after New York adopted a modified version of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. NYDOT’s adoption of those regulations includes the following rules:

  1. Weight Restrictions: NYDOT has adopted 49 C.F.R. § 391—which governs the minimum qualifications for drivers of commercial motor vehicles—but only applies it to drivers operating commercial motor vehicles that are either (1) at least 10,001 pounds and transporting hazardous materials, or (2) transporting hazardous materials requiring placarding under New York law.6
  2. Cargo Securement: NYDOT adopted the federal rules for securing cargo by adopting the cargo securement standards set forth by the FMCSA under 49 C.F.R. §§ 393.100-393.136 (2024). These rules create general requirements for securing cargo, as well as more specific rules for securing specific types of cargo such as logs, automobiles, or metal coils.7
  3. Commercial Driver’s License (“CDL”) Requirements: New York’s decision to adopt 49 C.F.R. § 391 means that every intrastate operator of a commercial truck or vehicle must obtain a CDL under New York state law.8

As a general rule, the FMCSR governs anyone driving a commercial truck or vehicle in interstate commerce. However, intrastate operations are automatically subject to only part of the FMCSR, the state’s CDL regulations, and any other regulations that the state has established. New York’s adoption of a modified version of the FMCSRs means that the FMCSR will generally govern intrastate operations in New York, but this is not true of every state.9

Proving Negligence in New York City Truck Accident Litigation

Making your case in a trucking matter will require you to prove fault on the part of either the owner/driver of the commercial vehicle or the owner/driver’s carrier or employer. In New York, the claim against an owner/driver of a commercial vehicle or his or her carrier or employer can be brought on a theory of either negligence or negligence per se. Further, a carrier can be held vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence, but it is also possible for the carrier to be held independently liable for its own actions. Each of these concepts will be explained further below.

Negligence vs. Negligence Per Se

Under the common law of New York, a negligence claim requires a plaintiff to show (1) that the defendant owed them a duty; (2) that the defendant breached that duty; (3) the plaintiff was injured; and (4) the defendant’s breach of their duty caused the plaintiff’s injury. A claim for negligence per se is a twist on the common law elements in that it establishes first that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, and second that the defendant breached that duty by violating a state statute.10

This distinction is very important under New York state law because New York law does not allow a claim of negligence per se based on the violation of a rule, regulation, or other provision of New York’s administrative code. Only the violation of a New York statute can constitute negligence per se. New York law considers the violation of a rule, regulation, or other provision of an administrative code as evidence of negligence. In the context of commercial truck accident cases in New York City, this means using the truck driver or carrier’s violations of the FMCSA or other New York rules or regulations as evidence that the driver and carrier were negligent. As such, a negligence action will be brought more frequently than a negligence per se action in New York City trucking accidents where the alleged negligent behavior is a violation of the FMCSRs.11

Trucking Companies Can Be Either Vicariously or Independently Liable

Remember, these cases are not only about the commercial vehicle operator’s negligence; they are also about the carrier or employer’s negligence. To that end, the FMCSRs create a presumption of statutory employment that holds the motor carrier responsible for the negligent behavior of a truck driver operating a vehicle under the carrier’s control. Thus, carriers cannot claim drivers are independent contractors to avoid liability in these cases because “the public policy underlying the FMCSA regulations [is] to eliminate the practice by motor carriers of hiring uninsured independent truckers to avoid liability” to injured third parties.12 In most circumstances, carriers are vicariously liable for the commercial operators they control.

Not only can carriers be held responsible for their drivers’ negligence, they can be held liable for their own negligence independent of the commercial vehicle’s operator. Negligence on the part of the carrier comes in many forms, including:

  1. Negligent Hiring, Training, Retention, or Entrustment: The FMCSRs impose strict requirements on trucking companies when they hire drivers, and, sadly, many trucking companies decide not to follow these requirements due to pressures to remain competitive and a shortage of dependable drivers.13
  2. Negligent Inspection, Maintenance, or Repair: If there is a mechanical failure contributing to the collision, then the carrier’s negligent inspection, maintenance, or repair of any of the truck’s complex systems may have caused the mechanical failure. 49 C.F.R. § 393 establishes the requirements for “Parts & Accessories for Safe Operation” and should be consulted when a particular component is suspected to have contributed to the collision.14
  3. Encouraging or Ignoring Falsified Hours-of-Service Logs: 49 C.F.R. § 392.3 prohibits drivers from operating a truck when the driver’s ability to be alert is impaired by fatigue, illness, or anything else making it unsafe to drive. 49 C.F.R. § 395 lays down the law concerning hours-of-service and logbook regulations. These provisions should be consulted whenever there is concern that a commercial vehicle’s driver was operating it in an improper state of fatigue.15

The carrier can be held liable, as a party independent of the driver, for all of the aforementioned negligent actions whenever the carrier controls the wrecked commercial vehicle.16

Investigations: The Most Critical Component of Building a Strong Truck Accident Case in New York City

Begin the Investigation Immediately

New York City commercial truck accident lawyers must begin their investigation of the case almost immediately. A poor or slow investigation of the accident can be devastating to semi-truck accident cases because evidence can be lost due to a lack of adequate preservation or the defendant intentionally destroying it. An easy way to prevent the loss or destruction of evidence is to send a letter to the defendant requesting written assurance that the evidence will remain intact and in existence, but counsel may seek a temporary restraining order if necessary to preserve the evidence.17

Inspect the Vehicles

By preserving the vehicles involved in the accident, the truck accident injury lawyer will be able to review the vehicles’ general maintenance prior to the accident, use expert witnesses to determine the speed at which the vehicles were traveling on impact, and examine the vehicles’ exteriors to determine the exact location of impact. The commercial vehicle may contain the truck driver’s logbook (which may reveal hours-of-service violations), maintenance records showing a long-ignored mechanical problem, or prescription drug containers indicating a driver’s illness or substance abuse. And, of course, the attorney will need to have the truck inspected.18

Get Witness Statements

Beyond obtaining this physical evidence, the attorney will want to interview witnesses and obtain their statements to develop a detailed overview of the case, target weaknesses in the case, and work to counteract those weaknesses. The attorney will want to speak with eyewitnesses, first responders, emergency personnel, highway patrol officers, and tow truck drivers to get important information about what happened.19

Know the FMCSRs

Every carrier in the United States must have a Motor Carrier Number (“MC Number”)—also known as “operating authority”—to operate in the United States. Carriers must demonstrate adequate financial ability, the ability to serve the public, and compliance with the FMCSRs’ stringent safety requirements regarding both equipment and driver competence to obtain operating authority.20

The MC Number identifies the type of trucking business in which the operator is engaged and the goods hauled by a specific carrier. Carriers with operating authority will also receive a “U.S. DOT Number,” which serves as a unique identifier when collecting and monitoring a company’s safety information acquired during audits, compliance reviews, crash investigations, and inspections.21

In order to obtain the MC Number and the U.S. DOT Number, the carrier must file an application known as Form MCSA-1. That application has a “Compliance Certifications” section in which the carrier certifies under oath that it:

  1. “is willing and able … to comply with all pertinent statutory and regulatory requirements and regulations issued or administered by the U.S. DOT, including operation regulations, safety fitness requirements, motor vehicle safety standards and minimum financial responsibility and designation of process agent requirements;” and
  2. “is willing and able to produce for review or inspection documents which are requested for the purpose of determining compliance with … the FMCSRs.”22

A copy of a carrier’s application can be obtained through the FMCSA. That application can then be used to demonstrate that the company violated the certification it signed under oath.23

An attorney can also order FMCSA safety information without a FOIA request and use a FOIA request to obtain other documents. The FMCSA safety information available without a FOIA request includes the safety ratings for specific motor carriers, carrier snapshots, and crash profiles. The attorney can use the U.S. DOT Number to FOIA request a company’s safety audits, compliance reviews, crash investigations, and inspections.24

Conclusion

As discussed above, the legal complexities of a trucking accident case involve issues of tort law and the extensive regulatory systems of the federal government and New York State. Upon accepting a truck accident case, a personal injury lawyer in New York City should immediately begin the extensive process of investigating the accident and all of the circumstances leading up to it.

At Dansker & Aspromonte Associates, our attorneys have extensive knowledge of these legal issues and expansive experience investigating precisely these cases. Reach out to our firm if you or a loved one have been injured or killed in a truck accident. Our attorneys are here to consult with you regarding the compensation you are owed under the law.

 

  1. National Safety Council, “Motor Vehicle Safety,” last accessed August 6, 2024.
  2. 49 C.F.R. § 395 (2024); Litigating Truck Accident Cases § 2:17 (April 2024).
  3. “Interstate Truck Driver’s Guide to Hours of Service,” FMCSA, last updated Thursday, April 28, 2022, https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hours-service/interstate-truck-drivers-guide-hours-service.
  4. 49 C.F.R. §§ 393, 396 (2024).
  5. 49 C.F.R. § 390.11 (2024) (charging trucking companies with requiring driver compliance with regulation, including in hiring); Litigating Truck Accident Cases § 2:6 (April 2024).
  6. 17 NYCRR §§ 820.0-820.14.
  7. 49 C.F.R. §§ 393.116-393.136 (2024).
  8. 17 NYCRR § 820.3 (adopting 49 C.F.R. § 391); 49 C.F.R. § 391.11 (requiring a valid commercial motor vehicle operator’s license).
  9. Litigating Truck Accident Cases § 17:34 (Apr. 2024).
  10. Id.
  11. Id.
  12. Litigating Tuck Accident Cases § 7:2 (Apr. 2024).
  13. L.J. v. Zhang, 212 N.Y.S.3d 789, 798-99 (2024).
  14. 49 C.F.R. § 393 (2024); Litigating Truck Accident Cases § 2:2 (Apr. 2024).
  15. Litigating Truck Accident Cases § 2:14 (Apr. 2024).
  16. Id.
  17. Id.
  18. Id.
  19. 49 U.S.C. § 31132(2) (2024) (defining “employee” as “an operator of a commercial motor vehicle (including an independent contractor when operating a commercial motor vehicle)”).
  20. Luizzi v. Pro Transport, Inc., No. 02 CV 5388(CLP), 2013 WL 3968736, at *26 (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2013).
  21. Litigating Truck Accident Cases § 3:1 (Apr. 2024); Litigating Truck Accident Cases § 8:3 (Apr. 2024).
  22. 49 C.F.R. § 365.117 (2024); Form MCSA-1 Application, Section M.
  23. Litigating Truck Accident Cases § 8:3 (Apr. 2024).

 

Recover Your Life

Let Us Fight For You
Free & Confidential Consultation

By submitting, you agree to be contacted about your request.

Unfortunately, based on your query, we are unable to assist you at this time. Our firm specializes in serious accidents and negligence cases, such as car accidents, slips and falls, construction accidents, and other accidents that require hospitalization or ongoing treatment.

Proven Record of Success

Dansker & Aspromonte Associates LLP has been advocating for the rights of the injured since 1986. We have the tools, resources, knowledge, and commitment to get you the best possible outcome.

Providing Answers & Solutions

Our team is committed to always being able to provide you with updates on your case and answers to your questions. This is your case and we want to be sure you are confident every step of the way.

Small Firm Dedication & Focus

Our firm is different from most firms in our area in that we are a “boutique” type firm that is small enough to give personal attention to our clients and yet experienced and powerful with a reputation as a hard-hitting litigation firm.

Innovative Legal Strategies

Each client that comes to our team gets a managing partner and trial partner dedicated to their case. We put our collective 100 years of experience behind your case to obtain the best possible outcome on your behalf.
Un joven chino con discapacidad de desarrollo de 21 años caminaba con algunos amigos después de la escuela cuando salió al cruce de peatones contra la luz y un autobús de la ciudad que estaba girando demasiado cerca de la esquina lo golpeó.
Un ayudante de camarero de 20 años fue atropellado por un automóvil en Ocean Parkway en Brooklyn, lo que lo dejó en coma y con graves lesiones cerebrales.
Esta contable caminaba después del trabajo en Battery Park en el paseo peatonal cuando de repente fue golpeada por una motoneta de la policía que iba a gran velocidad.
Una pasante de teatro de 22 años caminaba por la intersección de la calle 42 y la Novena Avenida en Manhattan cuando fue golpeada por la puerta trasera de un camión que pasaba cuando la puerta abrio volando porque no había sido asegurado correctamente por el conductor.
La Sra. Y-H, pasajera en un tren del metro que descarriló.
Un ayudante de camarero de 20 años fue atropellado por un automóvil en Ocean Parkway en Brooklyn.
Un repartidor en bicicleta de 26 años fue golpeado por una camioneta Dollar Rent-A-Car que iba a gran velocidad en una intersección concurrida, causando múltiples fracturas en el cuello, espalda, brazo y pierna, así como daños cerebrales leves.
Christian, un niño de 4 años, fue llevado al hospital para una reparación rutinaria de párpados caídos. El hospital, en una medida de reducción de costos, había contratado sus servicios de anestesia en quirófano a una corporación que empleaba principalmente enfermeras anestesistas en lugar de médicos capacitados para administrar anestesia.
Un niño sufrió lesiones graves después de caerse mientras corría detrás de su autobús escolar y ser atropellado por las ruedas traseras. Este caso demuestra la habilidad de la firma para obtener compensación en accidentes que involucran autobuses escolares y menores.
Un joven chino con discapacidad de desarrollo de 21 años caminaba con algunos amigos después de la escuela cuando salió al cruce de peatones contra la luz y un autobús de la ciudad que estaba girando demasiado cerca de la esquina lo golpeó.
La Sra. Y-H era una pasajera en un tren del metro que descarriló.
Un ayudante de camarero de 20 años fue atropellado por un automóvil en Ocean Parkway en Brooklyn, sufriendo lesiones graves, incluyendo un coma. Aunque es un caso de peatón, el incidente involucra un vehículo y demuestra la experiencia de la firma en manejar accidentes graves de tránsito.
A pesar del hecho de que este caso fue referido a Dansker & Aspromonte LLP Associates por otro abogado 17 años después de que ocurriera el accidente, se obtuvo un veredicto impresionante a través de una investigación cuidadosa y una preparación incansable.
En uno de los casos más trágicos que ha visto esta oficina, dos madres y sus cuatro adolescentes conducían a una reunión de natación de la escuela secundaria en el New York State Thruway en una camioneta.
Este caso involucró a una niña de 6 años que estaba en una camioneta que fue golpeada por una ambulancia en un choque de varios autos en el Northern State Parkway en Long Island, Nueva York.
Una oficial de la Policía de la Ciudad de Nueva York de 35 años sufrió lesiones graves mientras era pasajera en un automóvil policial en camino a una llamada de emergencia.
Un carpintero de 46 años cayó de una escalera que resbaló en el sitio de trabajo, lo que le causó lesiones significativas. Este caso ilustra la experiencia de la firma en accidentes de equipo defectuoso en entornos de construcción.
Un carpintero de 30 años cayó de una escalera en un sitio de trabajo en una tienda minorista, resultando en lesiones graves. Este caso subraya la capacidad de la firma para asegurar compensación en accidentes de caídas en proyectos de construcción.
Un inmigrante mexicano sin documentación cayó 30 pies desde un andamio en un sitio de construcción, sufriendo lesiones graves al impactar contra el cemento. Este caso demuestra la experiencia de la firma en caídas en el lugar de trabajo, comunes en la construcción.
Un trabajador de construcción sufrió fracturas en el hombro, clavícula, costillas y cadera, además de lesiones internas que requirieron múltiples cirugías. Este caso destaca la habilidad de la firma para manejar lesiones graves en el lugar de trabajo.
Baby S was born with a congenital hip dislocation which was not anyone’s fault. However, malpractice occurred when the doctors and hospital did not recognize the condition after she was born. Their failure to diagnose and properly treat the condition resulted in a slight but permanent deformity.
Julio, 16, was an outpatient at the Manhattan Children’s Psychiatric Hospital where he attended school and got psychiatric counseling and supportive therapy every day. The NYC Board of Ed operated the school. One day after school, Julio ran after his bus, which was leaving without him. He slipped and was run over by the back wheels, sustaining severe injuries, including bilateral hip fractures and a shearing injury to his buttocks. Board of Ed rules required that Julio was to be escorted to the bus. The NYCTA denied liability, claiming they weren’t negligent because Julio ran after the bus. The City denied liability because they claimed the school day was over. At trial, both the Board of Ed who had knowledge of Julio’s poor impulse control and was required to put him safely on the bus, and the NYCTA whose bus driver saw Julio running and made no effort to slow or stop the bus were found to be responsible.
Baby Taylor C. – Taylor’s mother had gained over 50 pounds during the pregnancy, was past due, and had a prolonged first stage and second stage of delivery. These are warning signs of an overly large baby. Baby Taylor was 9 lbs. 13 oz. Instead of delivery by C-section, which was clearly indicated, the attending physician elected a natural birth. When the baby was stuck in the pelvic area, excessive force was used to pull her out, injuring the nerves in her neck and causing partial paralysis of her left arm. The condition is known as Erbs Palsy. The case was settled during the trial. Fortunately, Baby Taylor’s injury improved over time.
Ayisha W- A young girl slid down a sliding pond in the playground of an NYC school. The slide was not installed properly and there was a gap between the metal on the side of the slide. As Ayisha slid down, her ring finger went into the gap and the top of it was cut off. The City argued that since it was just the tip of her finger it was not worth much money. At trial, it was proved that Ayisha had a devastating emotional reaction that affected every aspect of her life and self-esteem. The jury agreed.
A 46-year-old carpenter was working on a straight ladder which had been leaned against the wall on a jobsite. He fell when the ladder slipped away from the wall. As a result, he suffered facial injuries and a fractured knee that required surgery. The property owner and general contractor were found to be responsible because Jian S. should have been provided with a more suitable A-frame ladder or scaffolding.
A 30-year-old carpenter who was working at a job site in a retail store fell from a ladder onto both feet. He suffered bilateral calcaneus fractures requiring multiple surgeries.
An undocumented Mexican immigrant working on scaffolding at a construction site fell 30 feet onto the cement. He fractured his skull and vertebrae in his neck and back. It was shown at trial that the company he worked for failed to provide him with a safety line, which would have prevented his fall.
Following a 4- story fall, a construction worker at a West 17th Street construction site in Manhattan recently won a $5.5 million dollar settlement from the general contractor and building owner for failing to provide him with a safe workplace. Defendants had argued that the fall was the result of the 56 year old construction worker’s own carelessness but Dansker & Aspromonte Associates LLP lawyers were able to prove otherwise. As a result of his fall, the construction worker suffered fractures of his shoulder, clavicle, ribs and hip, as well as internal injuries which required multiple surgeries. These injuries required home care which was primarily provided by his wife who also received a payment of $500,000 as part of the settlement. To minimize their own responsibility, the general contractor and building owner claimed that the worker had made an excellent recovery when he had not. In order to prove the case, Dansker & Aspromonte Associates LLP retained 5 separate experts to illustrate the full extent of the worker’s injuries and the disabling effect they would have over the course of his life.
Maria, a housekeeper, was walking across Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn in the crosswalk when she was struck by a school bus and thrown over 25 feet. She sustained severe injuries, including multiple fractures. The bus driver claimed that he had a green light and was travelling at a safe speed. Unfortunately, Mrs. S. could not recall any of the facts of the accident. Our investigator combed the area for witnesses. He found a woman who lived on the sixth floor of an adjacent apartment building. Although she didn’t see the accident, she happened to look out her window and saw Maria’s body lying in the roadway down the street. Using this testimony, our accident reconstruction expert was able to prove that the bus had to be speeding to knock Maria that far from the crosswalk. The case was settled immediately after that testimony.
Our client was a married NYC Parks Department employee. On a snowy night in Staten Island, he was preparing his truck to spread salt on the roadways. He drove the spreader truck to the salt storage yard. As he waited alongside his truck, the operator of a front loader truck used to place the salt in the spreader lost control of the loading bucket. Sadly, he was struck by the bucket, suffered massive injuries and died in the hospital several hours later.
A 21-year-old developmentally disabled Chinese boy was walking with some friends after school when he stepped out into the crosswalk against the light and a City bus which was turning a little too close to the corner struck him. The young man had crippling injuries which prevented him from leaving the hospital where he died several months later. Despite the fact that eyewitnesses said the boy stepped into the street against the light, the law reduces an injured person’s share of liability in accordance with their mental capacity. At trial, it was proven through a guidance counselor from his school that he was intellectually comparable to a seven-year-old. Thereafter, the jury determined that this young man was not legally responsible for his actions and awarded 100% in his favor on the liability portion of the trial
In one of the most tragic cases this office has seen, two mothers and their four teenagers were driving to a high school swimming meet on the New York State Thruway in a van. When the driver suspected a flat tire, instead of pulling over onto the shoulder, the mother of two of the children inexplicably stopped the van in the right moving lane of traffic. Within a very short time, the driver of a tanker truck traveling at a steady 65 miles an hour who claimed not to see the stopped van, struck it at full speed, literally cutting the van in half. There were two survivors with grave injuries and four fatalities. We secured the maximum insurance that was available to cover these claims.
Following a 4- story fall, a construction worker at a West 17th Street construction site in Manhattan recently won a $5.5 million dollar settlement from the general contractor and building owner for failing to provide him with a safe workplace. Defendants had argued that the fall was the result of the 56 year old construction worker’s own carelessness but Dansker & Aspromonte Associates LLP lawyers were able to prove otherwise. As a result of his fall, the construction worker suffered fractures of his shoulder, clavicle, ribs and hip, as well as internal injuries which required multiple surgeries. These injuries required home care which was primarily provided by his wife who also received a payment of $500,000 as part of the settlement. To minimize their own responsibility, the general contractor and building owner claimed that the worker had made an excellent recovery when he had not. In order to prove the case, Dansker & Aspromonte Associates LLP retained 5 separate experts to illustrate the full extent of the worker’s injuries and the disabling effect they would have over the course of his life.
Un trabajador de construcción de 50 años estaba montando su bicicleta cuando cayó debido a un defecto en la carretera y sufrió pequeñas fracturas y daños cognitivos leves.
Un trabajador de mantenimiento de 31 años golpeó un sensor de presión de control de tráfico de la ciudad de Nueva York mientras montaba su bicicleta. Debido a un mal mantenimiento del sensor, el trabajador sufrió lesiones graves.
Una mujer y su novio estaban andando en bicicleta cuando entraron en un sitio de excavación sin protección en una zona completamente oscura bajo un paso elevado. La bicicleta de Rhonda cayó en un pozo y su cara se estrelló contra la carretera.
Un repartidor en bicicleta de 26 años fue golpeado por una camioneta Dollar Rent-A-Car que iba a gran velocidad en una intersección concurrida, causando múltiples fracturas en el cuello, espalda, brazo y pierna, así como daños cerebrales leves.
La madre de Taylor había subido más de 50 libras durante el embarazo, estaba atrasada, y tuvo una prolongada primera y segunda etapa del parto.
Una joven madre china por primera vez resultó herida debido a la negligencia médica de los médicos y el personal de lo que entonces era el Hospital Beekman Downtown.
Un bombero de 42 años, que antes había corrido más de 30 maratones, se cortó la pierna mientras luchaba contra un incendio.
Christian, un niño de 4 años, fue llevado al hospital para una reparación rutinaria de párpados caídos. El hospital, en una medida de reducción de costos, había contratado sus servicios de anestesia en quirófano a una corporación que empleaba principalmente enfermeras anestesistas en lugar de médicos capacitados para administrar anestesia.
Un guardia de seguridad resbaló en una superficie helada frente a un edificio propiedad de Metropolitan Life, lo que le causó una fractura de rodilla.
Una asistente de salud en el hogar de 56 años tropezó con un cable expuesto que se extendía desde una cabina telefónica en la plataforma del metro, resultando en una lesión que requirió un reemplazo de rodilla.
Un conductor de servicio se bajó de su vehículo para recoger dinero en el carril de un Burger King cuando cayó a través de una rejilla de alcantarillado rota, resultando en una caída de 4 pies y lesiones significativas.
Un trabajador de construcción indocumentado cayó desde un andamio a 30 pies de altura, impactando contra el cemento y sufriendo lesiones graves. Este caso muestra la experiencia de la firma en caídas graves en el trabajo, que se relacionan con incidentes de resbalones y caídas en entornos peligrosos.
Un niño de 16 años fue atropellado por un camión que estaba retrocediendo lentamente y quedó atrapado contra una pared, sufriendo una grave laceración en el bazo, que tuvo que ser removido.
Adjudicado al cónyuge. El Sr. S. era un empleado casado del Departamento de Parques de Nueva York. En una noche nevada en Staten Island, estaba preparando su camión para esparcir sal en las carreteras
En uno de los casos más trágicos que ha visto esta oficina, dos madres y sus cuatro adolescentes conducían a una reunión de natación de la escuela secundaria en el New York State Thruway en una camioneta.
Una pasante de teatro de 22 años caminaba por la intersección de la calle 42 y la Novena Avenida en Manhattan cuando fue golpeada por la puerta trasera de un camión que pasaba cuando la puerta abrio volando porque no había sido asegurado correctamente por el conductor.
Adjudicado al cónyuge. El Sr. S. era un empleado casado del Departamento de Parques de Nueva York. En una noche nevada en Staten Island, estaba preparando su camión para esparcir sal en las carreteras
Adjudicado a la familia. Un hombre de 49 años cayó por el hueco de un ascensor cuando las puertas del ascensor se abrieron, pero la cabina del ascensor estaba en un piso superior.
En uno de los casos más trágicos que ha visto esta oficina, dos madres y sus cuatro adolescentes conducían a una reunión de natación de la escuela secundaria en el New York State Thruway en una camioneta.
Este accidente ocurrió en el Bronx cuando Rafael C. estaba trabajando en un camión de saneamiento. El conductor perdió el control al girar el vehículo.
Una pasante de teatro de 22 años caminaba por la intersección de la calle 42 y la Novena Avenida en Manhattan cuando fue golpeada por la puerta trasera de un camión que pasaba cuando la puerta abrio volando porque no había sido asegurado correctamente por el conductor.Una pasante de teatro de 22 años caminaba por la intersección de la calle 42 y la Novena Avenida en Manhattan cuando fue golpeada por la puerta trasera de un camión que pasaba cuando la puerta abrio volando porque no había sido asegurado correctamente por el conductor.
En uno de los casos más trágicos que ha visto esta oficina, dos madres y sus cuatro adolescentes conducían a una reunión de natación de la escuela secundaria en el New York State Thruway en una camioneta.
Un bombero de 42 años, que antes había corrido más de 30 maratones, se cortó la pierna mientras luchaba contra un incendio.
Un Oficial de la Policía de la Ciudad de Nueva York de 35 años era una pasajera en un automóvil de la policía que iba a una llamada de emergencia.
An undocumented Mexican immigrant working on scaffolding at a construction site fell 30 feet onto the cement. He fractured his skull and vertebrae in his neck and back. It was shown at trial that the company he worked for failed to provide him with a safety line, which would have prevented his fall.
Julio, 16, was an outpatient at the Manhattan Children’s Psychiatric Hospital where he attended school and got psychiatric counseling and supportive therapy every day. The NYC Board of Ed operated the school. One day after school, Julio ran after his bus, which was leaving without him. He slipped and was run over by the back wheels, sustaining severe injuries, including bilateral hip fractures and a shearing injury to his buttocks. Board of Ed rules required that Julio was to be escorted to the bus. The NYCTA denied liability, claiming they weren’t negligent because Julio ran after the bus. The City denied liability because they claimed the school day was over. At trial, both the Board of Ed who had knowledge of Julio’s poor impulse control and was required to put him safely on the bus, and the NYCTA whose bus driver saw Julio running and made no effort to slow or stop the bus were found to be responsible.
Baby Taylor C. – Taylor’s mother had gained over 50 pounds during the pregnancy, was past due, and had a prolonged first stage and second stage of delivery. These are warning signs of an overly large baby. Baby Taylor was 9 lbs. 13 oz. Instead of delivery by C-section, which was clearly indicated, the attending physician elected a natural birth. When the baby was stuck in the pelvic area, excessive force was used to pull her out, injuring the nerves in her neck and causing partial paralysis of her left arm. The condition is known as Erbs Palsy. The case was settled during the trial. Fortunately, Baby Taylor’s injury improved over time.
Ayisha W- A young girl slid down a sliding pond in the playground of an NYC school. The slide was not installed properly and there was a gap between the metal on the side of the slide. As Ayisha slid down, her ring finger went into the gap and the top of it was cut off. The City argued that since it was just the tip of her finger it was not worth much money. At trial, it was proved that Ayisha had a devastating emotional reaction that affected every aspect of her life and self-esteem. The jury agreed.