Kings County, New York Rear-End Collision Concludes with Discontinuance

A car collision occurred involving the plaintiff, who operated a 2008 Nissan, and the defendant, who owned and operated a 2008 Suzuki. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant negligently caused the collision, claiming it resulted solely from the defendant's actions without any contribution from the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County, asserting claims for negligence and seeking damages for severe and permanent personal injuries allegedly sustained in the incident. In response, the defendant denied sole culpability, raising affirmative defenses including culpable conduct by the plaintiff, assumption of risk, failure to mitigate damages, a seat belt defense, and the emergency doctrine. The case concluded when the parties reached a mutual agreement. They stipulated to the discontinuance of the action with prejudice and without costs to any party.

On October 15, 2019, a collision occurred on Interstate 95 near the White Plains Road exit in New York. A vehicle operated by the plaintiff driver, carrying a plaintiff passenger, was involved in a crash with another vehicle. The defendant driver operated the second vehicle, registered in Florida, with the permission and knowledge of the defendant's employer and within the scope of employment. The plaintiffs filed a case alleging the defendant driver's negligence was the sole cause of the collision. They claimed the defendant driver's careless and reckless vehicle operation created a hazardous situation, directly causing the incident. The record indicated the collision was attributed entirely to the defendants' negligence, with no contributory fault found on the part of the plaintiffs. Both plaintiffs reportedly sustained severe and permanent personal injuries. The injuries met the criteria for serious injuries under New York Insurance Law, exceeding the scope of typical no-fault insurance coverage. The available record did not detail the case's final outcome.

An individual pedestrian was struck by a vehicle owned by the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation and operated by an unknown driver. The incident occurred at or near the intersection of 110 Street and Liberty Avenue in Queens County, New York. The pedestrian reportedly sustained severe personal injuries, including pain, disability, and emotional distress, and subsequently filed a vehicular liability action against the corporation. The plaintiff alleged the collision resulted from the defendant's negligence, citing the vehicle operator's failure to maintain proper control and to stop at the scene of the accident. The defendant, in its answer, denied negligence and asserted affirmative defenses, including culpable conduct by the plaintiff, failure to mitigate damages, and claims barred by the application of Texas Statute, among others. The parties ultimately settled their claims through a mutual agreement, leading to a stipulation of discontinuance of the action with prejudice.

A legal case stemmed from a motor vehicle accident. Few details were available regarding the specifics of the incident, the claims filed, or the outcome of the proceedings. The defense in the case reportedly engaged an expert specializing in actuarial services and forensic economics. This expert's areas of consultation included the valuation of personal injury, wrongful death, lost wages, and earnings capacity.

In December 2012, a plaintiff driver stopped their vehicle at a red traffic signal on Mamaroneck Avenue, near Old Mamaroneck Road in White Plains. A trailing vehicle, driven by one of the defendants, struck the plaintiff's vehicle from the rear. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging the driver was negligent in operating the vehicle and that the vehicle's owner was vicariously liable. The plaintiff claimed a herniated L5-S1 intervertebral disc, requiring physical therapy and fusion surgery in April 2013, followed by additional conservative treatments. The plaintiff sought compensation for past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering, asserting ongoing pain and limitations preventing manual labor and hindering household chores. The defense contended that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury as defined by the no-fault law. Defense experts submitted reports opining that the accident's force was insufficient to injure the lumbar spine and that the disc herniation was a degenerative condition, noting the plaintiff's prior spinal treatment. A motion for summary judgment on liability was granted in favor of the plaintiff, and the case proceeded to damages. The parties later negotiated a pretrial settlement totaling $1.1 million. The defendants' insurer paid $250,000 from its primary policy and an additional $850,000 from an excess policy.