Articles Tagged with Car Accidents

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.

Last time, we began looking at a case in which a Georgia man is suing a teen he accuses of using Snapchat immediately prior to the accident. The man—who suffered a traumatic brain injury—is also suing Snapchat. As we noted, the teen and her friends say the man actually pulled into their lane, not giving her enough time to stop.

For its part, Snapchat denies that it encourages its users to use the app while driving, and that it displays warnings to users to not use the program while operating a motor vehicle.  Police have, so far, chosen not to cite the teen for speeding partly because of conflicting accounts from her passengers about the speed of the vehicle. Police have said that the man may also have committed a moving violation by failing to signal before changing lanes. 

The case is an interesting one not only from the standpoint of social medial use and distracted driving, but also with respect to the issue of negligence in personal injury cases. First of all, there is the issue of comparative negligence, if both parties are found to be partially at fault. Then there is the issue of third party negligence for Snapchat.

Some of our readers, perhaps many, have heard of the social media platform called Snapchat. For those who haven’t, Snapchat is an image messaging application that allows users to take videos and pictures which are live for only a matter of seconds before they disappear. The app doesn’t support saving received messages, but it is possible to capture screenshots of the images.

Snapchat has been criticized for encouraging people to send inappropriate content without repercussion. Now, it seems, the company is being sued for encouraging distracted driving. 

A Georgia man who was struck by a teenager using the program is accusing the company of negligence. The accident apparently occurred when the 18-year-old’s vehicle was travelling at over 100 miles per hour—specifically 107 m.p.h., according to accident reconstruction specialists. The teen apparently had three friends in her vehicle at the time of the crash. He claims she had been using a Snapchat feature which allows users to clock the speed of vehicles in an attempt to push her vehicle to higher speeds. As a result of the crash, the man apparently suffered a traumatic brain injury.

Distracted driving is a serious problem wherever you go nowadays. The widespread use of mobile devices has made it all too easy for even otherwise responsible drivers to put both themselves and other motorists at risk. States take a variety of approaches to the problem of distracted driving, some stricter than others.

Here in New York, the legislature has banned both texting and the use of handheld devices for all drivers. These are both primary laws, meaning that law enforcement is able to make citations for the offenses without there have been other offenses. Such laws may be helpful in the battle against distracted driving, but they are inherently limited, and must be supplemented with other efforts, including public education on the dangerous of distracted driving. 

One of the emerging possibilities in fighting distracted driving is the use of so-called “textalyzer” phone scanners, which are able to tell law enforcement whether a driver was texting at the time of an accident. Lawmakers in New York are currently considering legislation which would make New York the first state where police are using the technology. Privacy concerns remain about the proposal, but supporters say the scanners would not allow officers to have access to motorists’ personal information.

Car accidents come in all shapes and sizes. They may be simple fender-benders or involve dozens of cars in a large pileup. The negligent party might be the driver that hit you or it might be the driver of the vehicle that you were in.

The second scenario can often be tricky and cause a lot of car accident victims to feel anxious. If you were hurt in a car accident due to the negligence of the person who was driving the car you were in, you may feel hesitant about filing a claim against them. After all, if the two of you were in the same vehicle, it is very likely that you know each other in some capacity. Perhaps you are coworkers who carpool to your jobsite every weekday or you guys are close friends who rode together to a weekend party.

It can be hard to consider filing a lawsuit against someone you know, but you may also feel as though you have no choice when you see the medical bills piling up. This is a sensitive issue and one that you may want to discuss with your personal injury attorney.

In this post we continue our discussion about the importance of child safety seats. The state of New York has specific laws that must be followed by anyone who is transporting a child in his or her vehicle. If an individual fails to follow these laws, they may be held liable if the child is injured in an accident.

In our last post we discussed the different types of seats that are available. When choosing a brand and type of seat, it’s also important to make sure that brand will actually work in your vehicle. Every car has backseats that are a bit different and may have different angles, so it’s important to make sure the car seat actually fits properly.

On top of that, it’s important to make sure the car seat is installed properly. The first step to take is to read the instruction manual that comes with the car seat and to read the car owner’s manual. These manuals will help you identify the proper way to install the car seat. Some car seats may use a tether anchor that is located in the car, while other car seats may have to use the vehicle’s seat belt in order to properly secure it into the car.

This week we are discussing the use of child safety seats in New York. In our last post we discussed the specific laws that our state has when it comes to using restraint systems and booster seats. While these systems do a great job at protecting our children, many parents do not really understand the different types of systems that are available.

There are basically four different types of restraints for children. The first kind is usually used for infants and newborns. These are known as rear-facing car seats. These seats face to the rear of the car and the seat cradles the child’s spine and neck during a crash. It also has a harness that keeps the child secure. Within this type of car seat there are different choices. You can get a seat that is only rear-facing. Your child will eventually outgrow this type of seat. These are often the types of seats that can be clicked out of a base and carried. You can also get a convertible seat that can change to forward-facing, or an all-in-one seat that can become forward-facing and later be used as a booster seat.

The next type of seat is called a forward-facing car seat. This has a harness and tether that keeps your child from moving forward during a crash. These car seats come in the all-in-one or convertible, as we discussed above, and also in a combination seat which can later turn the forward-facing seat into a booster.

New York, like every state across our country, has specific car seat laws. These laws are put in place in order to protect children who are traveling in vehicles. Children have fragile necks and spinal cords and need extra support and protection in the case of an accident. Just a seatbelt alone is not adequate enough to keep a child safe.

In New York, the laws are very specific:

-Children who are under 4 years old and weigh less than 40lbs must be buckled into a restraint system.