Buffalo slip and fall lawsuits require that the injured person be able to establish what they fell on. They also require that the defendant either actually be aware of the dangerous condition or that the condition was there long enough that the defendant reasonably could be expected to discover it. This second set of requirements can make a lawsuit more difficult if the injured person slipped on ice or snow during a snowstorm.
The fact that snow was falling, however, does not create a complete bar to recovery. Where the injured person can point to a specific condition that caused the fall which pre-existed the snowfall, he or she is still entitled to recover damages.
This may occur, for example, where the injured person slips on a patch of ice during a snowstorm. The fact that it is snowing does not mean that ice is forming on the ground during the snowfall, and such ice may have been present for several days. If the weather conditions support the earlier formation of the ice or eyewitnesses can point to the ice patch as having been present for a sufficient time before the storm that it should have been corrected, the injured person may still pursue a successful lawsuit.
If you have suffered an injury caused by falling, we would be happy to help you. Please feel free to call us at 716-542-5444 regarding your legal rights
Buffalo’s emergency responders perform an important function and need to be able to travel quickly. While this does not give them the right to act with complete disregard for other drivers and pedestrians, the law does give them certain rights when responding to an emergency call that may bar a successful personal injury lawsuit.
When responding to an emergency call, the law allows authorized emergency vehicles to disobey specific rules of the road related to stopping a red lights and stop signs, exceeding the speed limit, turning and parking. If they are engaged in one of these actions and on an emergency call, they are not held to the ordinary negligence standard if an accident occurs. Instead, it must be proven by the injured party that they operated with reckless disregard for the safety of others. If they are not engaged in one of these actions or not on an emergency call, the ordinary negligence standard applies.
If an emergency vehicle is responding to a call, however, it is required to have a siren activated and, if so equipped, at least one red light activated before the reckless disregard standard may apply in a personal injury lawsuit. The only exception to this is police vehicles, which are not required to activate their siren or lights.
Medical treatment in Buffalo automobile accidents is governed under New York State’s No Fault Insurance Law. Under this system, an injured person’s own auto insurance usually pays for the initial medical treatment, lost wages, and other expenses. These payments are a separate issue from any personal injury lawsuit that may arise against the other driver.
Because your own insurance company is paying for medical treatment, it is not unusual for them to request that a physician of their own choosing perform a medical examination. The purpose of this medical examination is supposed to be to verify whether the treatment you are receiving is necessary.
When asked to undergo such an examination, you should be aware that many experienced personal injury attorneys are suspicious of such exams. While some medical providers may generate a report that is objective and reasonable, it often appears that the primary purpose of this examination is not to determine whether additional treatment is necessary, but rather to obtain a “medical opinion” that will allow the insurance company to discontinue treatment.
If you have been in an auto accident and have any questions, please feel free to call us at 716-542-5444. We would be happy to assist you.
Buffalo landowners cannot be expected to keep their property perfectly clear of ice or other slippery conditions at all times. They are, however, required to do a reasonable job in attempting to maintain their property in a safe condition for those using it.
Slip and fall personal injury lawsuits usually are much easier when it can be proven that the defendant actually knew about the dangerous condition. This can happen when the defendant admits that he or she was aware of the problem but had not corrected it or when the record establishes that another party told the owner about the problem prior to the plaintiff’s injury.
Not being able to prove the defendant’s actual knowledge is not, however, absolutely necessary. If actual knowledge cannot be proven, a plaintiff may still be able to successfully pursue a lawsuit if it can be established the dangerous condition had existed for a sufficient length of time that the defendant could reasonably be expected to discover and remedy it. This rule helps protect plaintiffs from landowners who may be negligent in inspecting their property and then try to hide behind their lack of diligence when someone is injured.
In most Buffalo personal injury lawsuits, there are basically three things that the injured party must prove to successfully sue: (1) that the defendant was negligent, (2) that an injury was suffered, and (3) that the negligence was the cause of the injury. This third item – the required connection between the negligence and the injury – is referred to as “proximate cause.”
While proximate cause is easily established in many cases, there are circumstances under which it may be in dispute. This can happen, for example, when more than one person’s negligence created the situation leading to injury. When this happens, one or more of the parties may argue that while they may have been negligent, it was not their negligence that led to the injury, it was another party’s. While this may be true in some cases, under New York State law there can be more than one proximate cause to an injury, and all parties whose acts contributed to it may be held responsible.
Proximate cause may also come into dispute when the defendant attempts to point to some other source aside from the accident for the plaintiff’s injuries. This may occur, for example, when the injured person has received treatment for a prior injury to the same part of the body or where diagnostic examinations reveal possible age-related problems in the area of injury.
Buffalo personal injury lawsuits involving rear-end collisions are governed under New York State law. In all personal injury lawsuits involving motor vehicle accidents, the burden is placed on the person suing to establish that the other driver was negligent in the operation of his or her vehicle, leading to a collision.
The burden becomes much easier to meet, however, when the defendant struck the injured person’s vehicle from behind. Under such circumstances, all the injured person initially has to prove is that this was, in fact, a rear-end collision. Once the manner in which the accident occurred has been established, the burden then shifts to the rear driver to provide a non-negligent explanation regarding why he or she hit the leading vehicle.
If the defendant is unable to provide a non-negligent explanation, they he or she may be considered to have been found negligent as a matter of law. Only if a non-negligent explanation is provided by the defendant is the injured party required to provide evidence beyond the fact that the accident was a rear-end collision to establish the negligence of the defendant.
If you have suffered an injury in a motor vehicle accident and have any questions, please feel free to call us at 716-542-5444. We would be happy to help you.
Most Buffalo car accidents investigated by the police result in a document known as a Police Accident Report (Form MV-104A) being completed by the investigating officer. This document sets forth basic information relevant to the auto accident such as the names and addresses of the individuals involved, how the accident occurred, and whether there were any injuries reported.
While it often would be helpful to be able to use this document as evidence regarding how the accident occurred, it is usually not admissible in a personal injury trial. This is because much of the information on it is derived from the police officer’s conversations with the drivers and eyewitnesses regarding what led to the collision, not the officer’s direct observation. This second hand information is considered hearsay.
Your personal injury attorney, however, may still like to have a copy of the Police Accident Report when preparing your case. Although not admissible as evidence, it still contains useful information such as the names of witnesses that can be used in preparing your case.
If you have suffered a personal injury in a car accident, we would be happy to help you. Please call us at 716-542-5444.
Most matters in Buffalo personal injury lawsuits are appealed to a higher court called the Appellate Division for the Fourth Department. This court is based in Rochester, New York, and hears appeals from both civil and criminal courts covering a large section of upstate New York.
In most cases, an appeal will go no further than the Appellate Division. In personal injury lawsuits, the Appellate Division may review both the law and the facts to determine if the lower court reached a proper decision. Most decisions by a lower court are upheld, but occasionally the Appellate Division will find a mistake was made and reverse the lower court’s decision.
Occasionally, the party that loses at the Appellate Division may seek to have the matter reargued before the Appellate Division or heard by the Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in New York State. To reargue a matter, the party seeking reargument must convince the Appellate Division judges who rendered the decision that they made some mistake in analyzing the case that warrants reconsideration.
Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is rarely granted. The Court of Appeals is largely limited to reviewing only whether the Appellate Court correctly interpreted the law – it usually will not address findings of fact unless the Appellate Court abused its discretion. Typically, the only situation in personal injury lawsuits where the Court of Appeals may engage in a full review of the facts is when the Appellate Court overturned a lower court ruling based on new findings of fact.
Buffalo personal injury victims quickly become aware of the high cost of medical treatment. Even when the cost of medical treatment is being paid by insurance, individuals who have suffered a personal injury frequently receive copies of medical bills and can see how fast the cost of treatment adds up. The cost of prescribed medications can also be quite expensive. Fortunately for those who have suffered personal injury, the Federal Food & Drug Administration is taking steps to speed the processing of applications for much cheaper generic drugs.
In a recent interview on CNBC, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg acknowledged that a large backlog of generic drug applications awaiting approval has developed over the past few years, with the current number of generic drug applications in limbo currently standing at approximately 2,500. Given this problem, she indicated that the FDA is working with manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals on revamping the system for approval.
The system currently being discussed involves a user fee program that would provide funding to bring additional staff on board and increase the speed of review. The median review time for generic drug applications currently stands at approximately 30 months. The goal is to bring it down to 10 months.
Generic drugs usually cost from 50% to 70% less than brand-name drugs. They account for a significant saving in medical expenses for both personal injury victims and the general public. It is, however, unclear how the proposed user fee program would impact the final cost of generic drugs.
When a Buffalo personal injury lawsuit involves a neck or back injury – or, in some cases, injury to any joint – the injured person’s medical providers will frequently conduct range of motion testing to see if there is any limitation in the movement of the affected area. This testing often takes on special significance in personal injury lawsuits.
This is because to establish a serious injury in a motor vehicle accident lawsuit, the injured person must be able to present some objective evidence of injury. The courts have ruled that range of motion testing, if properly done, constitutes objective evidence. As a result, when significant limitations are shown in range of motion testing compared to “normal” results, it can be very helpful to the injured person’s case.
This situation is somewhat anomalous in that, while the courts recognize this evidence as demonstrating objective limitations, the medical community has increasingly moved away from range of motion testing as an accurate measure of the degree of personal injury. This is based on several factors, including differences in what constitutes “normal” from individual to individual, age and gender differences, and the often subjective nature of results that may be influenced by the injured person’s feeling pain and frequently show wide variation from doctor to doctor.
