Posts Tagged ‘accident’

Demetria Singleton participated in a “Stop and Frisk” training exercise conducted in a basement. Ms. Singleton played the role of perpetrator for Probationary Police Officers. During the drill, one of the Probationary Police Officers was encouraged to be aggressive and he swept Ms. Singleton’s legs from under her causing her to strike her knee on the concrete floor. The impact resulted in a ruptured left anterior cruciate ligament, torn lateral meniscus, and a herniated disc. Ms. Singleton was left fully disabled after two surgeries. Since employees are entitled to a safe workplace and this exercise could have been performed in the Police Academy with proper padding, the Court ruled in Ms. Singleton’s favor awarding her $2.4 million for past pain and $6 million for future suffering.

In an unrelated case, Police Officer Irma Mendez-Leguillos was awarded $2.6 million for her pain and suffering caused by a 350-pound file cabinet falling and crushing her hand. The Police Department was aware that the file cabinet was a problem but instead of replacing it, they merely moved it to another office.

Read full article here. (Subscription Required)

Judith Desposito v City of New York

Plaintiff, Judith Desposito, brought about an action to recover damages for personal injuries from defendant, the City of New York. The jury found defendant 100% at fault for the accident and awarded the plaintiff damages in the sum of $562,000 for past pain and suffering and $395,833.33 for future pain and suffering.

The City of New York appealed this decision. The Court felt that the evidence produced by the plaintiffs at trial proved that the appellant created the roadway defect or worsened the condition by performing work on the road causing the dangerous condition responsible for the accident. Also, the jury verdict should not be dismissed with the weight of evidence produced unless the jury might not have been able to reach its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence. Contrary to the appellant’s argument, the award to Plaintiff Judith Desposito was not outside the realm of reasonable compensation.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the judgment affirmed, with costs.

Peluso v. ERM

Plaintiff, Mildred Peluso, commenced this action to recover money for personal injuries sustained in December 2006 when she tripped and fell over rocks and gravel in a parking lot her employer, Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell), owned. Two months prior to the accident, defendant ERM completed construction work for Honeywell involving excavations and restorations of asphalt areas. ERM brought about an instant motion to dismiss this case claiming that the work was done two months prior to the accident and that plaintiff is not a third-party beneficiary to the contract between ERM and Honeywell and tort liability may not be imposed on ERM.

Counsel for the plaintiff argues that issues of fact exist that should prevent the granting of summary judgment, mainly the question of how ERM left the excavation site. The plaintiff asserts that ERM did not properly tamp down the holes and left them open, dangerous, and defective which created the dangerous condition causing Plaintiff to trip and fall. The Court agrees that a question of fact remains as to whether or not ERM left the parking lot in a dangerous condition and rejects ERM’s contention that they had no obligation to the plaintiff under the contract.

Accordingly, the Court denied ERM’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Colon v. New York Eye Surgery Associates

Defendant’s brought about this motion for summary judgment arguing that a grassy verge is not part of the sidewalk and that the high differential between the sidewalk and the grounds area was de minimus and therefore not a matter of law. Plaintiff was walking along a sidewalk flanked by a grassy verge on one side and in order to allow other pedestrians to pass her, she placed her foot on the lip of the sidewalk and lost her footing on unlevel ground. She twisted and snapped her ankle sustaining an avulsion fraction of the distal fibula.

The Court disagreed with Defendant’s argument that the location where Plaintiff fell was not part of the sidewalk. Plaintiff’s right foot twisted where the lip of the right side of the sidewalk failed to meet up with the ground of the defendant’s facility. This would be the grassy area of the grounds abutting the defendant’s building which the defendant admitted was their property and not the grassy verge abutting the curb. Therefore, the motion must be denied.

To support Defendant’s second argument that the unleveled area was de minimus, they provided a photocopy of a picture of the location of the accident. This picture was inadequate for showing the dimensions of the defect and has no probative value.

Accordingly, the Court denied the summary judgment in all respects.