I cannot recall why and when I first started collecting the articles about motorcycle accidents; however, over time, I realized that lawsuits arising from such claims are very common (in retrospect, for obvious reasons, the inherent danger and risk of riding a motorcycle). The causes raise a broad panoply of issues including proximate cause, helmet design and manufacture; and road and intersection signage and speed limits. A few recent examples follow:
v. Chesnick, 2017 NY Slip Op
07940 (1st Dept., November 14, 2017)
Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
First Department briefly described the facts:
As we enter the last month of summer, bike riding is on many of our “to do” lists.
Accidents and incidents involving bicycle riding are a fertile source of often complicated and protracted litigation – raising a broad panoply of issues relating, among many others, to the duty of care; violation of the Vehicle and Traffic law; the right of way; and the obligation to maintain public highways, streets and roads. Several recent examples follow:
Gami v. Cornell Univ., 2018 NY Slip Op 04812 (App. Div 3rd Dept. June 28, 2018) Continue reading
Even as a “seasoned” (NYU Law ‘69) commercial litigator, I am often surprised by the finite issues that are subject both to a trial court disposition and, also, to a subsequent appellate adjudication. A recent decision by the Appellate Division, involving parking violations, falls into that category of (to me) unusually demarcated legal proceedings. Matter of Nestle Waters North America, Inc. v. City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 05609 (1st Dept. July 31, 2014).
Nestle Waters was a “hybrid class action for Article 78 relief, declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and remission of fines unlawfully imposed seeking to, inter alia, annul the determination of respondent Appeals Board of Parking Violations Bureau of the City of New York (The Board).” Continue reading
When is an object in motion not in motion? The Section 1225-2.c “conundrum” and other VTL issues
Section 1225-c.2.(a) of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law, that took effect in late 2001, simply and clearly states that:
“Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway while using a mobile telephone to engage in a call while such vehicle is in motion.”
Like so many other statutes and areas of the law, the facial simplicity and clarity of the V&TL provision has nevertheless triggered a “tsunami” of litigation that has dissected, analyzed and examined almost every word and phrase of the statute. Continue reading