Posts Tagged ‘negligence’

Dinardo v City of New York

In this New York personal injury case, plaintiff Zelinda Dinardo, a special education teacher, sought to recover damages for injuries sustained while attempting to protect one of her students from attack by another student with a history of aggressive and disruptive behavior. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of plaintiff in April 2008 and respondents appealed.

Respondents argued that plaintiff’s claim should fail because it was based on the Board of Education’s alleged negligence in the placement and transfer of a student. Contrary to respondents’ contention, the issue at hand was that the school administrators failed to follow through with the transfer request in a timely fashion. Additionally, evidence disproves the Board’s argument denying liability due to no knowledge of previous violent outbursts by the student who attacked the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal without costs and affirmed the judgment awarding plaintiff damages in the amount of $512,465.

Read the full article here.

If you need a lawyer to represent you in your New York personal injury case, please contact Kevin P. Sheerin toll free at 888-998-9984.

E.V. v. Graco Children’s Products Inc.

The infant plaintiff, E.V., sustained personal injuries when he fell down a stairway while in a Graco infant walker. He allegedly suffers from the following injuries as a result of the incident: traumatic brain injury; developmental delays; impaired motor and sensory processing skills; blunt face and head trauma; abrasions, tenderness, and swelling to nasal area.

Defendants move for summary judgment arguing that there is no causal connection between the neurological and developmental delays and the subject accident. Defendants assert that the neurological deficits and developmental delays are due to the fact that the infant plaintiff has autism and not because he fell down a set of three stairs.

The infant plaintiff’s medical records indicate no positive findings on any neurological examinations and no loss of consciousness. His injury was characterized as “minor head trauma” and “soft tissue injury to the nose”. Plaintiffs refer to the affirmation of Dr. Leon Charash who examined the infant plaintiff and found that he had “pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) which can be seen in children like E.V. who has traumatic brain injury.” Plaintiffs failed to provide defendants with Dr. Charash’s curriculum vitae and did not disclose his identity until after defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. Also, Dr. Charash did not explain how he came to the conclusion that the infant plaintiff had traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident.

Accordingly, the Court granted defendants’ motion with respect to the fact that plaintiffs failed to establish a causal connection between the infant plaintiff’s neurological and developmental delays and the subject accident.