Municipal Liability for Injuries
An interesting decision came down in September of 2014 involving municipal liability claims. In Granada v City of White Plains, 2014 NY Slip Op 06053, the Second Department ruled that a municipality is not immune from claims involving “proprietary functions” which are therefore differentiated from governmental functions. The Plaintiff-decedent was attacked and killed in a parking garage owned by the city. The Plaintiff rented the parking spot from the city on a monthly basis. The city had the obligation of providing a minimum level of security in it’s proprietary function as a commercial property owner. The city’s function as a commercial property owner has nothing to do with its functions as a governmental body. Therefore, the city was not entitled to summary judgment based on governmental immunity.
Personal Injury Attorneys
As always, if you have a question involving a possible injury or wrongful death claim, call The Law Firm of Vaughn & Weber, PLLC at (516) 858-2620 to speak with a litigation attorney today.
Spoliation of Evidence
In September of this year, the Second Department reached a decision in Lentini v. Weschler, 2014 NY Slip Op 06062, with regards to the “Spoilation of Evidence.” Spoilation refers to the destruction or repair of critical evidence that will interfere with the ability of a litigant to prosecute or defend a claim. Generally, a preservation notice is required to alert the party in possession of the evidence that the evidence may be necessary for potential litigation. If the finds that spoilation occurred, the court can issue sanctions against the party who caused spoilation. In Lentini, the court held that spoilation sanctions require a litigatn to prove that the other party disposed of the critical evidence and fatally compromised the other party’s ability to prove or defend a claim. The disposal would have to have been intentional or negligent. A preservation notice was sent in Lentini. Therefore the court did not have to opine on whether or not the spoilation sanctions could be issued if the preservation notice was not given.
Long Island Litigation Attorneys
If you have been involved in an incident that caused damage to yourself or property, call The Law Firm of Vaughn & Weber, PLLC at (516) 858-2620 today to discuss the necessary steps to preserve evidence critical to your case.
Legal Procedure Decision
In Roseman v. Baranowski, 2014 NY Slip Op. 05635, the Second Department allowed Plaintiff leave to amend the summons and complaint in order to add a doctor as a defendant after EBT’s (depositions) were conducted. Plaintiff’s reason to add the doctor was that the doctor was “united in interest” with the original Defendants. The Court focused on the fact that the doctor being added either knew or should have known that he should have been included in the original action. More specifically, using the relation back doctrine, the Court considered if the new Defendant had notice within the applicable statute of limitations period. Hospital records listing work performed by new Defendant were used as proof of the new Defendant’s notice.
This case illustrates the importance of correctly bringing an action against all parties in interest. Failure to include a party can be detrimental or fatal to your case.
As always, if you have questions regarding the commencement of an action, call The Law Firm of Vaughn & Weber, PLLC at (516) 858-2620 to speak with a Litigation Attorney today!
Car Accident Injuries
An interesting decision was made in Cattan v. Sutton, 2014 Slip Op 05764 (8/13/14). The case involved an automobile accident in which Defendant made a motion for summary judgment. The full case can be read at the aforementioned site. The ruling in this case points to the fact that a driver having the “right of way” does not necessarily mean that the driver is exempt from being a proximate cause of an accident. The possibility exists that there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident. It is important to note that a duty for each driver exists. That duty is to see what there is to be seen through the proper use of the driver’s senses. This duty exists even when the driver has the “right of way.”
This ruling is important in evaluating a personal injury case stemming from an automobile accident. Just being injured by another driver who engaged in improper conduct on the road is not enough. Comparative fault must be eliminated. By doing so, a Plaintiff’s case is made stronger and the likelihood of success is increased.
New York Personal Injury Attorneys
As always, if you have been in an automobile accident and seek the assistance of an experienced attorney, please call The Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC at (516) 858-2620 today to schedule a free consultation!
Keep in Touch