Queens County Pedestrian Struck by Vehicle Case Settles

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.

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.

A 2018 Jeep motor vehicle, operated by the defendant and owned by a rental car company, rear-ended a 2011 Lexus operated by the plaintiff at Atlantic Avenue, near New York Avenue, in Kings County, New York. The plaintiff alleged that the collision caused serious and permanent personal injuries, special damages, and economic loss. The plaintiff subsequently filed a vehicular liability action in the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County, asserting claims of negligence against the defendant. The defendant denied the allegations, asserting affirmative defenses that included assumption of risk, culpable conduct, collateral source indemnification, and failure to wear seat belts or mitigate damages. The parties ultimately filed a stipulation of discontinuance of the action with prejudice, concluding the case.

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.

On July 13, 2010, a plaintiff was struck by or collided with a taxi on Fifth Avenue, at its intersection with 50th Street in Manhattan. The plaintiff alleged the incident caused injuries to her back, knees, and neck. She subsequently sued the taxi's owner, Expedited Taxi Corp., alleging the driver was negligent in operating the vehicle and that the corporation was vicariously liable for the driver's actions. During a summary jury trial, the plaintiff contended the incident occurred in a crosswalk, where the taxi was initially stopped, blocking pedestrians. She claimed the driver suddenly resumed travel upon noticing a police officer, striking her with the front of the vehicle. The plaintiff stated she fell onto the taxi's hood, and her knees became pinned between the taxi and a preceding van. She sought approximately $200,000 for past medical expenses and $150,000 for past pain and suffering, claiming injuries including knee derangement, meniscus tears, herniated and bulging spinal discs, and associated pain and limitation of motion requiring arthroscopic knee surgery and physical therapy. Defense counsel countered that the plaintiff was not struck by the taxi, but that her pants caught on the license plate, resulting in minor contact. The defense also argued that the plaintiff's claimed injuries were degenerative or not "serious" under the no-fault law, noting a delay in the diagnosis of her knee conditions. The parties entered a high/low stipulation that limited damages to a maximum of $90,000 and a minimum of $10,000. The jury found Expedited Taxi liable for the incident and determined that the plaintiff had sustained a "serious injury," specifically finding permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member and significant limitation of use of a body function or system. The jury awarded total damages of $200,000, but due to the high/low stipulation, the plaintiff recovered $90,000.