Source: http://creedongill.com/DownStateLitigation/LongIslandClMFall2015-CommonBusFatalityIssues-timedOutline.htm
Timestamp: 2017-12-12 12:10:33
Document Index: 452479801

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 1111', '§ 4', '§ 1180', '§ 1146', '§ 1211']

LONG ISLAND CLM FALL 2015 PRESENTATION
COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE: COMMON BUS FATALITY ISSUES
This event consists of a presentation. The presentation is fully described and contains a timed outline. The total educational session will be 50 minutes.
Course Objective: To educate claims, risk management and legal professionals with regard to frequent issues presented in Commercial Motor Vehicle Fatality cases.
Collisions between buses and other motor vehicles or pedestrians, are frequently deadly. With customary seven figure policy limits the stakes are high. Effective management of these kinds of cases requires a thorough understanding of the procedural and fact sensitive issues that are repeatedly confronted. This kind of an understanding lends itself to better practices in all motor vehicle litigation, and in all cases involving death or grave injury.
This presentation considers ten of the most recently reported decisions involving bus accident fatalities Each case has been chosen for addressing one or two main issues which frequently present themselves repeatedly to the professionals working in this field.
The cases are broken down into sections which provide a factual background, the key holding of the decision, the results of the decision, in addition, additional authority on the same issues is included at the case discussions end. A handout consisting of a detailed discussion of each of the cases and the issues they control will be provided
Course Relevance: Many of the most complicated and high exposure losses that insurers and their insureds confront arise from Commercial Motor Vehicle Fatality case. This seminar will provide insight and instruction from experienced Litigation Attorneys and Claim Handlers with the goal of providing the attendees practical advice on understanding the issues commonly and frequently confronted in these cases, and how successfully resolve their management or litigation.
Target audience: Adjusters, Claims and Risk Managers and Attorneys including newly admitted attorneys
Course/Seminar Length: 50 minutes It is intended that this Course will provide One Hour in Ethical Credit.
Study Method: Seminar
Presenters: Diane Messerschmidt Lancer Insurance Company
Paul Devine Goldberg Segalia
The headlined issues, each to be addressed for Five Minutes, are these:
2. DEFAULT REQUIRES PROOF OF CULPABILITY
3. PEDESTRIAN IN CROSSWALK, QUANTUM OF PROOF
4. DART OUT OR NO? MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE POSSIBLE
5. DECEDENT IN CROSS WALK ESTABLISHED RIGHT TO JUDGEMENT
6. EXPERT TESTIMONY, UNAVOIDABLE LOSS, EMERGENCY CHARGE.
7. DANGEROUS BACKING, CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING AWARD
8. CHOICE OF LAW ANALYSIS IN CROSS-BORDER ACCIDENT
9. ADMINISTRATIVE DMV DECISIONS
10. DUTY TO ALLOW A PASSENGER TO SAFELY DISEMBARK.
1. JOINT VENTURE CASSELL vs. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER,122 A.D. 3d 788 (A.D. 2nd Dept 2014) (5 Minutes)
i The bus allegedly was owned by one defendant
ii Decedent had purchased her bus ticket online ticket vendor.
B. KEY HOLDING:
i Elements of a joint venture are
ii. agreement of the parties manifesting their
iii intent to associate as joint venturers,
iv. mutual contributions to the joint undertaking,
v. some degree of joint control over the enterprise,
vi. mechanism for the sharing of profits and losses
i. complaint adequately alleged the elements of a joint venture
D. OTHER AUTHORITY:
i.Commander Terms. Holdings, LLC v. Poznanski, 923 N.Y.S.2d 190).
ii. Ackerman v. Landes, 493 N.Y.S.2d 59).
2. DEFAULT REQUIRES PROOF OF CULPABILITY WILLIAMS v MTA BUS COMPANY 44 Misc. 3d 673 (Sup. N.Y. 2014) (5 Minutes)
i. Plaintiff is legally blind, default judgment against MTA Bus Company was denied.
i “[s]ome proof of liability is also required to satisfy the court as to the prima facie validity
ii. only to some firsthand confirmation of the facts.”
i. plaintiff did not submit an affidavit of merit as to confirm the allegations that the MTA Bus ii. plaintiff presented differing accounts of the incident.
D. OTHER AUTHORITY
i. Joosten v. Gale, 129 A.D.2d 531, 535, 514 N.Y.S.2d 729 [1st Dept.1987]
ii. Feffer v. Malpeso, 210 A.D.2d 60, 619 N.Y.S.2d 46 [1st Dept.1994].)
3. PEDESTRIAN IN CROSSWALK AND QUANTUM OF PROOF GONZALEZ, v. LORISSA BUS SERVICE, INC., 94 A.D.3d 947 (A.D. 2nd Dept 2012). (5 Minutes)
i Decedent within a crosswalk at an intersection with a traffic light in her favor
ii. Operator testified before making a left turn and that he did not see Plaintiff.
i. The plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that
ii Diaz was already in the crosswalk
iii. Plaintiff was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident
i. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied.
i. Rules of the City of N.Y. Dept of Transportation [34 RCNY] § 4–04[b][2]
ii. Seong Yim Kim v. New York City Tr. Auth., 928 N.Y.S.2d 315;
iii. Kaminsky v. M.T.A. N.Y. City Tr. Auth., 911 N.Y.S.2d 698).
4. DART OUT OR NO? MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE POSSIBLE JAHANGIR, v. LOGAN BUS CO., INC., 89 A.D.3d 1064 (A.D. 2nd Dept 2011) (5 Minutes)
i. Defendants' provided sufficient evidence that the decedent darted out
ii. And defendant driver unable to avoid contact with the decedent.
iii. But Plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact.
iv. Affidavit did not constitute an attempt to create a feigned issue of fact
v. At most, provided more detail
i. There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident
i. issue of fact exists as to whether there was a statutory violation or proximate cause of the accident.
i.Afghani v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 845 N.Y.S.2d 131
ii.Ledbetter v. Johnson, 810 N.Y.S.2d 914
iii.Mancia v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth. Long Is. Bus, 790 N.Y.S.2d 31
iv.Sheppeard v. Murci, 761 N.Y.S.2d 244
v.Cox v. Weil, 927 N.Y.S.2d 607
vi.Wilson v. Rosedom, 919 N.Y.S.2d 59.
5. DECEDENT IN CROSS WALK ESTABLISHED RIGHT TO JUDGEMENT SHENKERMAN, v. C. GOYCOECHEA, 34 Misc.3d 496 (Sup Kings 2011) (5 Mintues)
i Elderly decedent killed in Crosswalk, allegedly blind
ii Plaintiff SJM against caretakers failed did not describe the source or nature of duty owed
iii against the Bus Driver defendant, Police Accident Report (see CPLR 4518[c]
iv Affidavits of two non-party witnesses to the accident,
i Plaintiff establishes prima facie that defendant driver was negligent,
ii By statute and City regulation, Decedent was given the right of way
C. RESULTS: SJM granted in favor of Plaintiff.
i Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111[a], 1112[a], 1642 [a];
ii Rules of the City of New York, 34 RCNY §§ 4–02[e], 4–03[a], 4–03[c].)
6. EXPERT TESTIMONY PERMITS CONCLUSION OF UNAVOIDABLE ACCIDENT, ALLOWS FOR EMERGENCY CHARGE. LONG vs. NIAGARA FRONTIER 81 A.D.3d 1391 (A.D. 4th Dept 2011) (5 Minutes)
i. Decedent killed crossing street.
ii. Plaintiff at trial Defendant was speeding, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180
iii. he failed to sound his horn in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146.
iv. But the only testimony on speed was from Defendants accident reconstructionist
v. Question of whether expert contradicted self
vi. Credible with his testimony that the Decedent was in the street only 1.5 seconds
vii Under these circumstances The Court also gave the jury an "emergency charge".
i. The expert's testimony merely created an issue of fact for the jury to resolve
ii. Driver admittedly did not sound the horn on the bus until he saw decedent BUT
iii defendants' expert testified that decedent was in the street for only 1.5 seconds before impact. iv. iv decedent was not in a crosswalk
v. Drive testified he had his eyes on the road and the oncoming traffic,
vi. jury's determination Driver was not negligent is supported by fair interpretation of the evidence. vii. Emergency Charge was warranted,
C. RESULTS: Jury's verdict in favor of the Bus Driver affirmed.
i. Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 77 N.Y.2d 322,
ii. Feaster v. New York City Tr. Auth., 568 N.Y.S.2d 380).
iii. Lifson v. City of Syracuse [Appeal No. 2], 900 N.Y.S.2d 568).
7. 90 MINUTS SUFFERING BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO USE "SPOTTERS" WHILE BACKING SUPPORTS 1.2 MILLION CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING AWARD DOWD v NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY 78 A.D.3d 884 (A.D. 2nd Dept 2010) (5 Minutes).
i. A bus operator cannot see directly behind the bus, as there is a “blind spot.”
ii. “spotters,” would assist the buses in reversing out of the terminal.
iii. Reversing slowly with the reverse alarm sounding, but with no one to help
iv. bus ran over the decedent on the sidewalk
v. The decedent was still conscious and complaining of pain when paramedics arrived
vi. cardiac arrest upon her arrival at the hospital at 6:38 A.M.
vii. revived into cardiac arrest a second time, and was pronounced dead at 7:50 A.M.
i. the jury verdict finding the defendants 100% at fault in the happening of the accident was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.
ii. 1.7 million for 90 minutes conscious pain and suffering was excessive.
i Jury's verdict finding the bus 100 per cent liable affirmed. 1.7 reduced to 1.2 million.
i. Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1211, 1151–a, 1151 [b]
ii. 34 RCNY 4–04[d]; 4–10[h]
iii. Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184).
i. CPLR 5501 [c];
ii. Perez v. St. Vincents Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of N.Y., 886 N.Y.S.2d 486
iii. Twersky v. Busche, 830 N.Y.S.2d 725
iv. Ramos v. La Montana Moving & Stor., 669 N.Y.S.2d 529.
8. CHOICE OF LAW ANALYSIS IN CROSS BORDER ACCIDENTBUTLER vs STAGECOACH GROUP PLC 72 A.D.3d 1581 (A.D. 4th Dept. 2010) (5 Mintues)
i Collision - tractor-trailer parked on shoulder with chartered women's hockey team from Ontario, ii. Plaintiffs attempt to pierce the corporate veil
iii. Apply New York Law regarding damages
B. KEY HOLDINGS:
i. The trip was arranged by the bus defendants , without participation by parent corp.
i. court properly applied a conflict of laws analysis
ii. preferred analytical tool in tort cases is to apply interest analysis
iii. law of the jurisdiction having the greatest interest in the litigation will be applied and
iv. Controlled by Court of Appeals in Neumeier v. Kuehner, 31 N.Y.2d 121
vi if the parties to the lawsuit share a common domicile, law of their domicile applies
vii Where, domiciled in different jurisdictions, law of the site of the tort shall apply
viii Ontario law does violates the public policy of New York
ix. “resort to the public policy exception - reserved for those foreign laws that are truly obnoxious; x. Plaintiffs traveled to New York for a brief time for recreational purposes
xi. Such limited contact is not sufficient to implicate the public policy of New York
i. Law of Ontario applied to Damages issue between bus and bus passengers.
ii. Corporate Veil not pierced.
i. Matter of Morris v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., , 603 N.Y.S.2d 807,
ii.cHallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224
i. Neumeier v. Kuehner, 31 N.Y.2d 121
ii. Cooney v. Osgood Mach., 81 N.Y.2d 66
iii. Schultz v. Boy Scouts of Am., 65 N.Y.2d 189
9. ADMINISTRATIVE DMV DECISION NOT DISPOSITIVE PARKES vs AHMAD 23 Misc.3d 1120(A) (Sup Kings 2009) (5 Minutes)
i. A DMV hearing to “investigate a fatal accident"
ii. Driver attended a part of the hearing without counsel.
iii. Disposition that Driver “failed to obey the red traffic signal"
iv. Decedent argued collateral estoppel is applicable to quasi judicial determinations
i. specific factors to be considered
ii. nature of the forum and the importance of the claim in the prior litigation
iii incentive and initiative to litigate and the actual extent of litigation
iv. the competence and expertise of counsel,
vi the availability of new evidence
vii. the difference in the applicable law and the foreseeabililty of future litigation.
i. review of the transcript makes clear Driver not given a full and fair opportunity” to contest
ii. arrived late at the hearing because he took the wrong train.
iii. He was not advised of his right to counsel
iv. He was not present for the testimony of other witnesses and thus had no opportunity to cross
v The DMV's findings are not dispositive of the issues in these actions.
i. Ryan v. N.Y. Telephone Co, 62 N.Y.2d 494 [1984]
ii. People v. Plevy, 52 N.Y.2d 58, 65
iii. Fratangelo v. Benson, 294 A.D.2d 88 [4th Dept 2002]
iv. Martin v.Zoslasky,172 Misc. 846 [Kings County 1997]
10. DUTY TO ALLOW A PASSENGER TO SAFELY DISEMBARK.LOCKHART vs. ADIRONDACK TRANSIT LINES 289 A.D.2d 686 (A.D. 3rd Dept 2001) (5 Minutes)
i. Bus companies contend that this obligation was fulfilled
ii. Contend decedent's conduct was an intervening and superceding cause of the accident
i. poor lighting conditions in the commercial area where she was discharged
ii. decedent's dark attire and burdensome load
iii. not dropped off at a crosswalk, intersection, bus stop or bus terminal
iv. create a question of fact whether provided with a reasonably safe place to alight Street thereby v. forcing them to cross the road to access the bus terminal was an accident waiting to happen.
Summary Judgment for Bus Companies denied.
i. Miller v. Fernan, 73 N.Y.2d 844
ii. Gross v. New York City Tr. Auth. 681 N.Y.S.2d 513;
iii. Eisen v. City of New York, 679 N.Y.S.2d 297;
iv. Connolly v. Capital Dist. Transp. Auth., 599 N.Y.S.2d 731;
v. cf., Russell v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 651 N.Y.S.2d 814;
vi. Matter of Eisenberg v. Village of Mamaroneck, 525 N.Y.S.2d 280
vii. Mooney v. Niagara Frontier Tr. Metro Sys., 510 N.Y.S.2d 393).