Articles Posted in Car Accidents

In our last couple posts, we looked at a recent spate of pedestrian and cyclist deaths in New York City, noting that three of the four accidents were hit-and-run incidents. As we pointed out, pedestrians and cyclists have rights and should not assume that they have no possibility of recovering damages after an accident, despite the occasional bias they may encounter with law enforcement.

That being said, pedestrians and cyclists should be aware that, in seeking compensation for damages caused by a negligent motorist, they may themselves be subjected to allegations of negligence. This can occur when the pedestrian or cyclist may have taken some sort of unsafe action that ended up contributing to the accident. This is known as the doctrine of comparative negligence. 

A fair number of states recognize some form of comparative negligence. The basic idea is that a plaintiff may have his or her damages reduced in proportion to his or her degree of fault for the injuries. Under New York’s comparative negligence law, an injured party may recover damages in cases where he or she is deemed to have been negligent, even if the individual is 99 percent at fault. This is known as pure comparative fault. In other states, a plaintiff may only have the ability to recover damages if he or he is less than 50 percent of 51 percent at fault.

Last time, we mentioned a spate of pedestrian and cyclist accident in New York City, pointing out that three of the four accidents were hit-and-run incidents. As we noted last time, pedestrians and cyclists sometimes face challenges with the criminal justice system in having accidents fairly investigated.

In some cases, law enforcement officers have been known to make incorrect assumptions about fault when investigating an accident. When offices are afflicted with bias against cyclists, and sometimes pedestrians, to it can translate into a failure to cite an at-fault party for a violation or failure to take more widespread action to address unsafe driving practices that put pedestrians and cyclists at risk. 

Cyclists, in particular, face a fair amount of mistreatment and bias from motorists and law enforcement. Part of the problem, of course, is that some cyclists habitually and blatantly violate basic traffic laws. Running red lights and stop signs, failing to move to the shoulder of the road when it is safe and possible to do so, failing to alert motorists about turns, and so on. When a cyclist violates traffic rules, it is fairly obvious and has a way of generating anger among motorists.

Four individuals were killed by motorists in New York City last weekend, a powerful reminder of the serious risks pedestrians and cyclists face on the road and of the need to continue to improve roadway safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

One of the victims was a pedestrian, while two were cyclists. Sources weren’t clear about the fourth victim, but did say that three of the crashes were hit-and-runs. Hit-and-run, of course, is a serious crime, not only because it puts an accident victim at increased risk of fatality, but also because it represents a failure to take responsibility for harm done to another human being. 

Neither were sources clear about the circumstances of all the crashes, though at least one of the crashes occurred while the victim had the right of way. Different cities have different local laws, but New York City’s Right of Way Law imposes punishments on motorists who harm pedestrians and cyclists who are abiding by all traffic regulations at the time of the accident. Cab drivers, under another law, can have their license revoked for killing walkers or bikers who have the right of way. As some commentators have pointed out, though, these laws are not consistently enforced or pursued by prosecutors.

We’ve been looking at the issue of teens and distracted driving in recent posts, discussing first of all a recent study highlighting the extent of the problem and then some of the state laws seeking to address the problem. As we pointed out last time, laws addressing the issue of distracted driving are intended not only to keep highways safer, but also to serve as a basis for liability when accidents do occur.

Victims of teen driving accidents can and should seek compensation to cover their injuries and losses. The first place to look for this is with insurance. Teens who are covered by their parents’ insurance should be able to recover at least some costs that way. In cases where the teen driver is not covered or is inadequately covered by his or her parent’s insurance, for whatever reason, it may still be possible to pursue compensation from the teen’s parents, or the owner of the vehicle as the case may be, under a theory of owner’s liability or negligent entrustment. 

Under New York law, vehicle owners can be held liable for deaths and injuries resulting from the negligent use or operation of their vehicle, whether or not they were operating the vehicle at the time of the accident. In order to be liable, the vehicle owner—whether a parent or another individual—must have given permission to the driver to use the vehicle.

Last time, we began looking at the issue of distracted driving and recent research underscoring the extent of the problem among teen drivers. As we noted, states have sought to address the problem not only by passing laws limiting cell phone use among drivers, particularly novice drivers, but also by limiting teen driver’s freedom to have peer passengers in the vehicle with them.

According to Distraction.gov, New York prohibits both texting while driving and all handheld use of a cell phone while driving. Both of these laws are primary laws, meaning they can be enforced without a police officer witnessing any other violations. 

New York law is actually stricter than many states, where handheld use of a cell phone is not banned or perhaps is only banned for certain classes of drivers. This means it is still legal for drivers in New York to talk while driving, provided they are using voice-operated system. The fact that it is legal, of course, does not make it safe.

Distracted driving is among the biggest issues in roadway safety nowadays, accounting for a significant number of crashes and fatalities. No age group is immune, particularly given the fact that so many Americans own smartphones, which are a significant source of distracted driving. That being said, young drivers are probably at a heightened risk given what some studies have shown.

According to a recent AAA study, almost 60 percent of teen crashes are a result of distracted driving. The study is a follow-up to previous research showing that the 100 days beginning on Memorial Day are the deadliest for teen drivers. 

That research also shows that over the past five years, an average of 1,022 people have died annually in crashes involving teenage drivers. Accidents involving teenage drivers between the ages of 16 and 19 increase by 16 percent per day compared to the rest of the year.

This is the fifth post in a series dealing with the topic of third party lawsuits in motor vehicle accident cases, by which we mean liability for parties who were not directly involved in the accident. Last time, we looked at truck accident cases and the possibility of vicarious liability for failure to properly supervise trucking employees to ensure compliance with federal and state safety rules.

Another possibility for pursuing third party liability in motor vehicle accident cases arises when product defects contribute to the accident. When an accident is caused by vehicle defects or malfunctions, or a failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions, it is important to work with an experienced attorney to seek compensation from responsible parties, including manufacturers, distributors and sellers. 

There are several legal theories upon which product liability cases may be based. With negligence claims, an accident victim sues a manufacturer or retailer for failure to exercise reasonable care in the design or manufacture of the motor vehicle. Distributors and retailers may also be sued for failure to take reasonable care in the inspection of the vehicle or failure to provide the purchaser adequate warnings or instructions about the product. Product liability cases based on strict liability do not require proof of fault, but do require proof that the manufacturer caused the victim’s injury. Product liability cases may also be based on breach of warranty claims.

We’ve been looking in recent posts at the issue of vicarious liability in the context of motor vehicle accidents involving employees and independent contractors. Last time, we looked particularly at the foreseeability and scope of employment requirements. As we noted, the key question with scope of employment is whether the employee was doing the employer’s work at the time of the accident.

There are a variety of factors courts consider when determining whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment. These factors include, first of all, the time, place and location of the act. In the context of a motor vehicle crash, the court would be looking for where and when the crash occurred. Did it occur on the employer’s premises or on a job site? Did the crash occur before, during or after working hours? These and other such questions are important to consider. 

Another factor is the actual relationship between the employer and employee and how this relates to the employee’s work duties. If the worker’s job description or contract doesn’t include certain activities, but is an established agreement that the employee engages in those activities, the latter may be considered within the scope of employment for purposes of vicarious liability. In cases where the employee did not perform his or her duties as directed or as they are ordinarily performed, courts will also consider the extent of the departure and whether any wrongdoing that caused injury could have been reasonably anticipated by the employer.

Last time, we began discussing the issue of liability in the context of motor vehicle accidents. As we noted, it is important for accident victims to explore all possibilities in terms of liability, including the possibility of comparative negligence and vicarious liability, particularly employer liability for the actions of employees and independent contractors.

We’ve already pointed out that employers are generally accountable for the wrongful actions of employees acting within the scope of employment, but are only liable for the wrongful actions of independent contractors in limited situations. One important limitation on vicarious liability is foreseeability, which limits the type of actions for which an employer can be held responsible. 

Established New York case law has it that, to be held vicariously liable, the employee’s actions must have been generally foreseeable by the employer, as well as naturally incident to the employment. In the context of motor vehicle accidents, this means that the general type of employee conduct which led to the accident must have been reasonably expected and must be a natural part of the motorist’s work duties.

In a previous post, we mentioned that third party liability is an important issue to explore in motor vehicle accident cases where there may have been other parties who contributed to the accident other than the individuals directly involved in the crash.

The possibility of pursuing such third-party liability really depends on the circumstances of the case, and it is important to work with an experienced attorney who can help identify all potentially liable parties and hold them accountable. One possibility for third party liability is vicarious liability, which involves holding employers liable for the wrongdoing of their employees.  

Under New York Law, an employer is generally liable for the actions of an employee as long as the employee was acting within the scope of employment. Employers are generally not going to be liable for the wrongful actions of independent contractors since they do not exercise as much control over their actions. In New York, the courts will determine whether an employment relationship exists on the basis of whether one party maintains general supervisory powers the other. If the supervision only amounts to incidental control, there is no employment relationship that may give rise to vicarious liability.