The Role of the City of New York in Preventing Pedestrian Accidents

The rate of pedestrian deaths reached a four-decade peak in 2022, when 7,500 pedestrians were killed on American roads.[1]  New York City once epitomized this danger, and at its worst, New Yorkers were being killed by automobiles at nearly double the national rate.[2]  But this sobering statistic has changed drastically since then: 2023 was New York City’s safest year for pedestrians since record-keeping on the issue began more than one-hundred years ago.  In 2023, there were only 101 deaths in a metropolis of more than 8.5 million people.[3]

New York City has made extraordinary progress, but unfortunately, injuries still occur despite that staggering progress.  As will be discussed below, New York City can be held responsible for those injuries under some circumstances.  New York law generally recognizes a duty of care that falls upon the City of New York to keep its streets and sidewalks in good shape.  The State’s failure to perform that duty can leave the State financially responsible for injuries resulting from its breach.

If you are injured in a serious pedestrian accident then it is imperative to retain experienced legal counsel to represent you as soon as possible.  Ultimately, every case is unique, and the results of a given lawsuit will be heavily dependent upon its facts and circumstances.   Our pedestrian accident attorneys at Dansker & Aspromonte have great experience in handling pedestrian accident cases.  Call (516) 206-6723 or contact us at our online contact form (linked here) today to schedule your free consultation.

NYC’s Current Strategies to Prevent Pedestrian Accidents

Vision Zero Initiative

New York City has come a long way in addressing issues of pedestrian safety in the decade since becoming the first American city to implement Vision Zero.[4]  Vision Zero “is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all.”[5]

Vision Zero is a philosophical departure from more traditional approaches to preventing pedestrian, bicycle, and automotive injuries.  Traditional approaches to improving traffic safety focused on the sought to change human behavior while behind the wheel.[6]  These approaches considered traffic deaths to be inevitable and attempts to save lives were thought to be too expensive under this approach.[7]

Not so with Vision Zero.  Vision Zero is a traffic safety initiative program that understands human beings will make mistakes while on the road and instead places its focus on improving systems.[8]  It does not just accept that death and injury is a necessary result of those mistakes.[9]  Vision Zero seeks to address human error by integrating this inevitability into safety approaches.[10] Vision Zero aims to design road systems and the policies that govern them to ensure that human mistakes do not result in severe injuries or fatalities.[11]

The program does this with a cross-disciplinary approach that utilizes collaboration among local traffic planners, engineers, legislators, administrative agencies, and public health professionals.  By utilizing this cross-disciplinary approach, Vision Zero acknowledges the many factors that contribute to safe travel, including: (a) roadway designs, (b) speed limits, (c) driver behaviors, (d) technology, and (e) policymaking.[12]

Upon implementing Vision Zero in January 2014, New York City took the following measures to increase pedestrian safety:

• reduced the speed limit to twenty-five miles per hours;
• launched a speed camera program to detect motorists who exceeded the speed limit; and
• began new education initiatives for both drivers and pedestrians.[13]

Moreso, the NYC DOT has released Borough Pedestrian Safety Action Plans analyzing pedestrian deaths and serious injuries.  A 2015 study found that a staggering 51% of pedestrian deaths or serious injuries occurred at just 8% of New York corridors from 2009-2013, and 15% of them were happening at just 1% of intersections over that same timespan.[14]  Vision Zero implemented targeted measures aimed to reduce the deaths at these corridors, and by 2016, there was a 29% decline in pedestrian deaths.[15]

To assist in the implementation Vision Zero, the New York State Departments of Transportation and Health teamed up with the Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee to create a pedestrian safety campaign: the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (“PSAP”).[16] The PSAP provided a $110 million commitment to improving pedestrian safety by focusing on the three Es: Engineer, Enforcement, and Education.[17]

Engineering : Building Pedestrian Friendly Infrastructure in New York City

The New York City Department of Transportation (“NYC DOT”) is reimagining New York City’s streets and public spaces to make pedestrians safer.[18]  NYC DOT’s newest projects are specifically designed to reduce opportunities for motorists to drive over the speed limit or otherwise drive aggressively.[19]  Those measures provide a secondary benefit: not only do they increase pedestrians’ comfort that they will be safe from motorists, but they also lubricate the flow of traffic.[20]

The term “traffic calming” is used to describe NYC DOT’S safety-minded design interventions.  These traffic calming measures can include:

• of speed bumps, curb extensions, raised crosswalks, and other interventions;
• narrowing lanes to remove excess width from existing traffic lanes;
• installing raised speed reducers, which deflect the wheels and frame of a vehicle in order to slow it down;
• retiming traffic signals;
• removing parking spaces or otherwise restricting legal parking near intersections;
• installing traffic diverters, or physical barriers that make it either impractical or impossible to use local streets for anything other than local access trips; and
• preventing illegal left turns by installing median barriers.[21]

Enforcement: New York’s Traffic Safety Enforcement Program

The New York Traffic Safety Enforcement Program (“TSEP”) aims to maximize the effectiveness of the infrastructure built and policies enacted by ensuring police agencies at the state, county, and local levels understand the purpose of these investments and how to best enforce them.[22]  The Police Traffic Services (“PTS”) Grant program is the primary source of funding that facilitates these traffic enforcement initiatives by New York City police agencies.[23]

Once funded, the traffic enforcement community is assessed by the identification of enforcement priorities, helping to allocate resources to their optimal tasks.[24]  The Highway Safety Program Representatives and Law Enforcement Liaisons (“LELs”) are responsible for that allocation.  The LELs base their decisions on (1) their analysis of data about the time, geographic location, and demographic breakdown of crashes and (2) consideration of the latest traffic enforcement training & tactics.[25]

Education:

Finally, the Department of Health is seeking to educate the public by cooperating with the Department of Transportation and the Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee to both develop and distribute See and Be Seen pedestrian safety campaign resources.[26]  These materials are provided at this link and may be used by the public as needed, and they include videos, posters, tip cards, presentations, warning notices, and a few other resources that are all linked here.

Municipal Liability: When is New York City Accountable?

Under New York law, governmental entities—meaning entities such as counties, cities, and municipalities—are under a duty of care which obligates them to maintain the highways, roads, streets, sidewalks, and other thoroughfares under their control in a reasonably safe condition.[27]  That same duty requires these entities to adequately warn users of existing hazards.[28]  Not only does this duty cover the streets and sidewalks, but it even keeps these entities on the hook when they fail to:

• ensure that appropriate traffic control devices are installed and that proper maintenance is performed on those traffic control devices[29];
• maintain barriers to traffic or erect them when necessary[30];
• maintain the curbs that abut the street[31];
• remove ice, snow, or debris from the roads—assuming they have had notice and reasonable time to remove said ice, snow, or debris[32];
• remove or eliminate dangerous obstructions in the road[33]; and
• ensure streets are adequately lit as is necessary to keep them safe.[34]

To be clear: New York City’s absolute duty to keep its streets in a reasonably safe condition is not without limits.[35]  In deciding if New York City failed to keep the streets in a reasonably safe condition, the City has qualified immunity for liability arising out of its safety planning decisions.[36]  In practical terms, this means that jury verdicts concerning the reasonableness or safety of a plan for governmental services cannot obstruct normal government plans by removing these planning decisions from the expert planners who are entrusted with making them.[37]

So when can New York City be held liable for injuries resulting from the City’s breach of its duty to keep the streets in a reasonably safe condition?  First, the City can be liable for injuries resulting from planning decisions based on traffic studies that are “plainly inadequate” or for which there is no reasonable basis.[38]  Further, once the City actually implements a traffic plan then the City is under a continuing duty to review that plan in light of the plan’s actual effects and operation.[39]  Second, New York City is obliged by its duty of care to undertake reasonable studies with the intention of alleviating dangerous traffic conditions once the City is made aware of such a condition.[40]

In its most basic terms, New York City can be held liable for injuries resulting from breaching its duty of care if:

• the City’s plan is based on a plainly inadequate study;
• there is no study nor any other reasonable basis for the decision the City made;
• the City fails to consider the review and correct negative effects of its plan once it implements that plan; or
• New York City fails to fix dangerous traffic conditions after being informed of them.

Legal Remedies for Injured Pedestrians

Procedural Hurdles to Recovery: The Notice of Claim

New York state law expressly waives immunity from lawsuits brought against its public corporations.[41]  As a city in New York State, New York City is a municipal corporation subject to such a lawsuit.  However, there is a crucial procedural step that must be followed scrupulously to file a claim for personal injury against New York City.

New York law requires a notice of claim to be filed prior to the commencement of a lawsuit against New York City where the claims arise from tort law.[42]  That notice of claim must be served within ninety days of potential plaintiff sustaining the injury.[43]  This ninety-day requirement is critical, and time quickly slips away while the injured pedestrian recovers from his or her injury.  Failing to meet that ninety-day notice requirement can mean losing the right to bring a claim at all.  This is one of the many reasons why it is critical to engage trusted legal counsel with experience handling these claims as soon possible.

The notice of claim must be in in writing, and it must set forth:

• the name and post-office addresses of each plaintiff and their attorneys;
• the nature of the claim at issue;
• when, where, and how the injury occurred;
• the injuries the plaintiff claims to have sustained; and
• the damages claimed by the plaintiff.[44]

Further, the notice of claim must be served on the public corporation by either delivering a physical copy if it personally, or by sending it in registered or certified mail.[45]  These requirements may seem exacting or tedious, but they are an important part of the legal system.  The notice of claim is intended to avoid stale claims against the government[46], and it also allows the City to investigate the circumstances surrounding the claims, the merits of the claims, and, possibly, to settle the claim more quickly.[47]

Damages: What Injured Pedestrians May Receive

Generally, personal injury plaintiffs who file suit against the New York City government may be eligible to receive compensation for bodily injuries, loss of consortium, loss of services, both past and future pain and suffering, and loss of earnings.[48]  There is only one type of damages which personal injury plaintiffs cannot receive in these actions: punitive damages.[49]

Conclusion

As demonstrated above, the New York City has gone to great lengths to reduce pedestrian injuries.  Ten years after Vision Zero was adopted, the City had its lowest number of pedestrian deaths ever.  The financial commitment to reducing these deaths was sweeping, and the City has engaged many different types of professionals to implement these policies at optimal levels.  Clearly, these efforts have improved public safety on New York City streets and sidewalks.

Vision Zero is a program with a target of zero pedestrian injuries or deaths, and New York City has yet to reach that goal.  New Yorkers are still being injured by New York City’s defective streets and sidewalks at an alarming rate.  When that happens, they are entitled to financial compensation for their injuries, but obtaining that compensation is a difficult task.

To ensure maximum compensation, an experienced attorney like the ones at Dansker & Aspromonte should be retained as soon as possible to ensure that the notice of claim is properly drafted and delivered to the City.  By retaining our pedestrian injury attorneys at Dansker & Aspromonte, you can rest assured that your claim is in capable hands and that you will receive full and fair compensation for your injuries.

Do not wait a minute longer: call us at (516) 206-6723 or contact us at our online contact form (linked here) today to schedule your free consultation if you or a loved one has been injured as a result of New York City’s negligence.

At Dansker & Aspromonte, we want to hear your thoughts: what additional safety measures do you think New York City should implement to protect pedestrians?

[1]  Surico, John, “New York City Just Had Its Safest-Ever Year For Pedesrians. What Went Right?”, Bloomberg (March 11, 2024), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-03-11/new-york-city-s-decade-long-battle-for-pedestrian-safety.

[2]  Id.

[3]  Id.

[4]  Surico, John, “New York City Just Had Its Safest-Ever Year For Pedesrians. What Went Right?”, Bloomberg (March 11, 2024), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-03-11/new-york-city-s-decade-long-battle-for-pedestrian-safety.

[5]  Vision Zero Network, “What is Vision Zero?” (accessed Dec. 2024), https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/.

[6]  Id.

[7]  Id.

[8]  Id.

[9]  Id.

[10]  Id.

[11]  Id.

[12]  Id.

[13]  Surico, John, “New York City Just Had Its Safest-Ever Year For Pedestrians. What Went Right?”, Bloomberg (March 11, 2024), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-03-11/new-york-city-s-decade-long-battle-for-pedestrian-safety

[14]  Vision Zero, Year Three Report at 14 (February 2017), https://www.nyc.gov/assets/visionzero/downloads/pdf/vision-zero-year-3-report.pdf.

[15]  Id.

[16]  Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee, Efforts to Improve Pedestrian Safety (accessed Dec. 2024), https://trafficsafety.ny.gov/efforts-improve-pedestrian-safety.

[17]  Id.; New York Department of Transportation, Pedestrian Safety Initiatives – Taking Action on Pedestrian Safety (accessed Dec. 2024), https://www.ny.gov/programs/pedestrian-safety.

[18]  See New York City Department of Transportation, Pedestrians (accessed Dec. 2024), https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/pedestrians.shtml.

[19]  Id.

[20]  Id.

[21]  New York City Department of Transportation, Pedestrians – Traffic Calming Design Guidelines (accessed Dec. 2024), https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/traffic-calming.shtml.

[22]  Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee, Law Enforcement (accessed Dec. 2024), https://trafficsafety.ny.gov/law-enforcement.

[23]  Id.

[24]  Id.

[25]  Id.

[26] The Three Es: Engineering, Education and Enforcement (accessed Dec. 2024), https://www.ny.gov/pedestrian-safety/three-es#engineering.

[27]  Friedman v. State, 67 N.Y.2d 271, 283-84 (Ny. 1986).

[28]  Martin v. Reedy, 606 N.Y.S.2d 455, 456-57 (1994).

[29]  Alexander v. Eldred, 63 N.Y.2d 460 (Ny. 1984).

[30]  Gomez v. New York State Thruway Authority, 73 N.Y.2d 724 (1988).

[31]  Nado v. State, 631 N.Y.S.2d 444 (1995).

[32]  Bruce v. State, 146 N.Y.S.2d 767 (1997).

[33]  Karrat Bros. & Co. v. State, 156 N.Y.S.2d 924 (1956).

[34]  Parada v. City of New York, 613 N.Y.S.2d 630 (1994).

[35]  Friedman v. State, 67 N.Y.2d 271 (Ny. 1986).

[36]  Id.

[37]  Id.

[38]  Id.

[39]  Id.

[40]  Id.

[41]  N.Y. Ct. Cl. Act § 8.

[42]  NY Gen. Mun. § 50-3.

[43]  Id.

[44]  Id.

[45]  Id.

[46]  Thomann v. City of Rochester, 246 N.Y. 165 (1931).

[47]  Brown v. Board of Trustees of Town of Hamptonburg, School Dist. No. 4, 303 N.Y. 484 (N.Y. 1952).

[48]  15 N.Y.Prac., New York Law of Torts § 17:77 (Aug. 2023).

[49]  Sharapata v. Town of Islip, 56 N.Y.2d 332 (1982).