<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Personal Injury Lawyer - 866ATTYLAW &#187; Truck Accidents</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/category/truck-accidents/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog</link>
	<description>New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:03:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Ten Most Recent Truck Accident Verdicts in NY Courts</title>
		<link>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/ten-most-recent-truck-accident-verdicts-in-ny-courts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/ten-most-recent-truck-accident-verdicts-in-ny-courts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:28:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Accident Injuries]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Accidents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Auto Accidents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Truck Accidents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/?p=141</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[




<strong>Lisa Sanchez v. John E. Gonzalez Rose Brand Wipers, Inc., and Ryder&#8230;, 2010 WL 2277735 (2010)</strong>


 



<p> </p>



<img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_128g6nfgkf6_b" alt="" width="78" height="10" /> © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.






<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
<p>2010 WL 2277735 (N.Y.Sup.) (Verdict and Settlement Summary)</p>
<p>Copyright (c) 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved</p>
<p>Supreme Court, Twelfth Judicial District, Bronx County, New York.</p>
<p>Lisa Sanchez v. John E. Gonzalez Rose Brand Wipers, Inc., and Ryder Truck Rental Inc.</p>
<p>No. 15393/07</p>
<p>DATE OF VERDICT/SETTLEMENT: April 29, 2010</p>
<p>TOPIC: MOTOR VEHICLE - PEDESTRIAN - MOTOR VEHICLE - SINGLE VEHICLE - MOTOR VEHICLE - CROSSWALK - MOTOR [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<div>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Lisa Sanchez v. John E. Gonzalez Rose Brand Wipers, Inc., and Ryder&#8230;, 2010 WL 2277735 (2010)</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_128g6nfgkf6_b" alt="" width="78" height="10" /><span style="font-size: x-small;"> © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">2010 WL 2277735 (N.Y.Sup.) (Verdict and Settlement Summary)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright (c) 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Supreme Court, Twelfth Judicial District, Bronx County, New York.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Lisa Sanchez v. John E. Gonzalez Rose Brand Wipers, Inc., and Ryder Truck Rental Inc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">No. 15393/07</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">DATE OF VERDICT/SETTLEMENT: April 29, 2010</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">TOPIC: MOTOR VEHICLE - PEDESTRIAN - MOTOR VEHICLE - SINGLE VEHICLE - MOTOR VEHICLE - CROSSWALK - MOTOR VEHICLE - QUESTION OF LIGHTS</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Pedestrian Alleged Truck Failed to Yield the Right of Way</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">SUMMARY:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RESULT: Mediated Settlement</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Award Total: $2,750,000</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Approximately one month before the scheduled trial date, the parties negotiated a $2.75 million settlement, which was established via the guidance of mediator Michael McAllister of JAMS.</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">EXPERT WITNESSES:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Albert R. Griffith</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, EdD; Vocational Rehabilitation; Newark, NJ </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Noel Perin</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Neurosurgery; New York, NY </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ronny Hertz</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Pain Management; New York, NY</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Charles A. Kincaid</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, Ph.D.; Vocational Rehabilitation; Hackensack, NJ </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Jerome M. Block</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Neurology; New York, NY </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Jessica F. Berkowitz</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Radiology; Port Chester, NY </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Maurice C. Carter</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Orthopedic Surgery; New York, NY</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">ATTORNEYS:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Stephen J. Murphy</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Block O’Toole &amp; Murphy, L.L.P.; New York, NY (Lisa Sanchez); </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">David L. Scher</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Block O’Toole &amp; Murphy, LLP; New York, NY (Lisa Sanchez)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Daniel J. McNamara</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; DeCicco, Gibbons &amp; McNamara, P.C.,; New York, NY (</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">John E. Gonzalez</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, Rose Brand Wipers, Inc.); None reported (Ryder Truck Rental Inc.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">JUDGE: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Howard R. Silver</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Michael McAllister</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RANGE AMOUNT: $2,000,000-4,999,999</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">STATE: New York</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">COUNTY: Bronx</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">INJURIES: Sanchez was transported from the scene to St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital. She claimed that she sustained a non-displaced fracture of the right foot’s fifth metatarsal and a left wrist injury, consisting of a distal radioulnar joint dislocation and a triangular fibrocartilage complex tear.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Facts:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">On March 27, 2007, plaintiff Lisa Sanchez, 54, an administrative assistant for a music school and at a funded research study at a hospital, walked out of her job at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital in Manhattan, and toward the Columbus Circle subway station. As she attempted to walk east across Columbus Avenue, at its intersection with 60th Street, a rental truck struck Sanchez as it attempted to make a left turn from 60th onto Columbus Avenue. She claimed that she sustained injuries to her left wrist, right foot and neck.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Sanchez sued the driver of the truck, John Gonzalez; his employer and renter of the vehicle, Rose Brand Wipers, Inc.; and the truck’s owner, Ryder Truck Rental Inc. He alleged that Gonzalez was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that the remaining defendants were vicariously liable for his actions.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The action against Ryder Truck Rental was discontinued prior to trial, and the matter proceeded to mediation against the remaining defendants.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Sanchez claimed that she had a pedestrian walk signal in her favor as she attempted to cross the street. She also alleged that she was walking within the designated crosswalk at the time of the accident. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Gonzalez failed to keep a proper lookout and attempted to make a left turn when it was unsafe to so.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Gonzalez claimed that he had a green light in his favor as he entered the intersection and began his turn. He alleged that he observed the plaintiff walking outside the confines of the crosswalk just before contact and that Sanchez was attempting to cross the street against a red pedestrian signal. </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Thus, defense counsel argued that Sanchez actions were the proximate cause of the accident.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff’s counsel presented medical records documenting that some time later, Sanchez began complaining of neck pain that radiated down into her arms. She was ultimately diagnosed with disc herniations at C4-5, C5-6 and C6-7 with radiculopathy. Thereafter, she began treating with physical therapy, medication and received one trigger point injection to address her neck pain and limitations prior to surgery. Sanchez claimed that when conservative treatment failed to relieve her symptoms, she consulted with a spine surgeon and ultimately underwent an anterior cervical discectomy with fusion at C4-5, C5-6 and C6-7.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Sanchez alleged that the fusion surgery failed to relieve her radiating neck pain and that she eventually began to suffer from new symptoms of discomfort and difficulty swallowing. As a result, she underwent multiple trigger point injections and consulted with a new surgeon, a pain management doctor and an otolaryngologist, who all recommended a second neck surgery. The second procedure utilized a combined anterior/posterior approach, involving the removal of the plate that was inserted during the first surgery approximately one year before and a removal of the spinal processes from C3 through C7. The procedure also consisted of a decompressive laminectomy and a bone graft fusion from C3 through C7.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Sanchez claimed that she was able to continue working two jobs from the time of the accident up until her second neck surgery, which was more than two years later. However, she alleged that she became permanently disabled from employment after the second neck surgery. She claimed that her neck is now significantly limited in terms of mobility, especially give that four vertebral levels of her cervical spine have been surgically fused. Sanchez alleged that the limited mobility of her neck coupled with her pain has limited many aspects of her life, including her ability to work, socialize and interact with her children. The plaintiff also claimed that she would require ongoing medical treatment as a result of her injuries.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defense counsel would have argued that the plaintiff’s unrelated pre-existing medical conditions, including congestive heart failure and diabetes, limited her life span and therefore greatly decreased the extent of any alleged future damages.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The defendants’ expert radiologist would have testified that she found that the minimal damage shown on the plaintiff’s cervical MRI films were all degenerative in nature and all pre-dated this accident. The defendants’ expert neurologist also examined Sanchez and found that she had no significant neurologic deficits relative to her neck at all. The defendants’ orthopedic expert would have further testified that Sanchez’s neck problems had nothing to do with the accident, and pointed to radiographic studies and operative findings of the plaintiff’s own surgeon that revealed her neck condition to be degenerative in nature.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Thus, defense counsel contended that the plaintiff’s injuries were not causally related to the accident and pointed to the fact that Sanchez did not complain of neck pain at the scene of the accident or at the emergency room that day. In addition, the defendants’ vocational rehabilitation expert would have testified that Sanchez was still capable of performing work.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Insurer:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">One Beacon Insurance Co. for John E. Gonzalez and Rose Brand Wipers, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">ALM Properties, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Bronx Supreme</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">PUBLISHED IN: VerdictSearch New York Reporter Vol. 28, Issue 1</span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: xx-small;">End of Document</span></strong></td>
<td><span style="font-size: xx-small;">© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
</div>
<div>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Porforio Hernandez v. Acculift Sales, Inc., 2010 WL 2277794 (2010)</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_128g6nfgkf6_b" alt="" width="78" height="10" /><span style="font-size: x-small;"> © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">2010 WL 2277794 (N.Y.Sup.) (Verdict and Settlement Summary)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright (c) 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Supreme Court, Twelfth Judicial District, Bronx County, New York.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Porforio Hernandez v. Acculift Sales, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">No. 8265/07</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">DATE OF VERDICT/SETTLEMENT: April 28, 2010</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">TOPIC: NEGLIGENCE - NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff Claimed Lift Truck’s Defect Not Noted by Servicer</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">SUMMARY:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RESULT: Verdict-Defendant</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Award Total: $0</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The jury rendered a defense verdict.</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">EXPERT WITNESSES:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">George H. Meinschein</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Mechanical; Freehold, NJ </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Herbert S. Sherry</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Orthopedic Surgery; New York, NY</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Edward Crane</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Orthopedics; New York, NY </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">John McManus</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, P.E.; Engineering; Purchase, NY </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Robert A. Tantleff</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Radiology; East Meadow, NY</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">ATTORNEYS:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">John H. Shields</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Hill &amp; Moin LLP; New York, NY (Porforio Hernandez)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Victor A. Vincenzi</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Litchfield Cavo LLP; New York, NY (Acculift Sales Inc.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">JUDGE: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Robert E. Torres</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RANGE AMOUNT: 0</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">STATE: New York</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">COUNTY: Bronx</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">INJURIES: Hernandez was taken to the hospital the night of the accident, where he was treated and released for a bruised and swollen left knee. He underwent an MRI three months after the accident, which was negative. A year later, Hernandez underwent arthroscopic surgery to treat a torn anterior cruciate ligament and torn meniscus in his left knee. He had a second surgery one year later to implant hardware into his knee. He followed up with physical therapy.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Facts:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">On July 12, 2004, plaintiff Porforio Hernandez, 26, a data entry clerk, was operating a motorized lift truck at Yankee Stadium, in the Bronx. Hernandez claimed he was checking locks on concession stands, along with two fellow employees of Centreplate, which operated concessions for the stadium. Hernandez claimed that the truck experienced brake failure while going down a ramp, forcing him and the two passengers to jump off. Hernandez claimed that he sustained an injury of his left knee.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hernandez sued Acculift Sales Inc., the company that sold the lift truck to Centreplate. He alleged the defendant of negligent maintenance and repair, creating a dangerous condition.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hernandez claimed the lift truck wouldn’t stop as it accelerated down a ramp in Yankee Stadium, forcing him and his co-workers to jump off. Hernandez claimed he injured his knee when it struck part of the lift. He claimed Acculift, which provided maintenance and repair services to Centreplate for its purchased products, failed to identify and fix the brake failure problem, which would have prevented the accident. He also claimed that the lift wasn’t inspected for load.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Acculift contended that a repair of the lift truck in question was conducted on July 8, 2004, four days before the accident, in which the brakes were replaced. Acculift claimed a warehouse supervisor signed an invoice on July 8, stating that the repair was satisfactory. The defendant further claimed that an inspection it conducted on the truck, after the accident, proved it operated properly.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Acculift claimed that according to Hernandez’s supervisor, it was unknown whether he was trained or authorized to operate the lift truck. Acculift claimed, hence, that the accident was Hernandez’s fault for using a vehicle he didn’t know how to operate.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hernandez claimed he never went back to work following the accident, and has been on worker’s compensation. He claimed residual pain and discomfort in his left knee, which prohibited him from physical activity, like playing basketball. He claimed his injuries prevented him from pursuing a new job, and sought $1.5 million in damages for past and future lost earnings, medical costs and pain and suffering.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Acculift contended that Hernandez’s injuries were not causally related to the accident in question, since his hospital records stated he had stability in his left knee, up to one week after the accident. Acculift further contended that Hernandez’s MRI from three months after the accident showed no tears or knee damage. The defendant also claimed that Hernandez could have gone back to work as a data entry clerk, since the job wasn’t physically demanding.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Insurer:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">ALM Properties, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Bronx Supreme</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">PUBLISHED IN: VerdictSearch New York Reporter Vol. 28, Issue 1</span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: xx-small;">End of Document</span></strong></td>
<td><span style="font-size: xx-small;">© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
</div>
<div>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ann Hernandez v. Horwith Trucks, Inc. and Robert Raymond Evans, 2010 WL 2277739 (2010)</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_128g6nfgkf6_b" alt="" width="78" height="10" /><span style="font-size: x-small;"> © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">2010 WL 2277739 (N.Y.Sup.) (Verdict and Settlement Summary)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright (c) 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Supreme Court, Twelfth Judicial District, Bronx County, New York.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ann Hernandez v. Horwith Trucks, Inc. and Robert Raymond Evans</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">No. 13058/07</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">DATE OF VERDICT/SETTLEMENT: April 21, 2010</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">TOPIC: MOTOR VEHICLE - PEDESTRIAN - MOTOR VEHICLE - QUESTION OF LIGHTS</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Motorist Claimed Plaintiff Darted Into His Vehicle’s Path</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">SUMMARY:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RESULT: Verdict-Defendant</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Award Total: $0</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The jury rendered a defense verdict.</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">EXPERT WITNESSES:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: Ching Wen, DDS; Dentistry/Odontology; Bronx, NY </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Gautam K. Khakhar</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Physical Medicine; Bronx, NY Robert Oropall, DPM; Podiatry; Bronx, NY </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Stuart W. Sachnin</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.S.; Vocational Assessment; Elmsford, NY</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Martin J. Barschi</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Orthopedics; White Plains, NY</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">ATTORNEYS:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Gregory M. LaSpina</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Borchert, Genovesi, LaSpina &amp; Landicino, P.C.; Whitestone, NY (Ann Hernandez, Ann Hernandez)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Christopher J. Turpin</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Cartalfalsa &amp; Turpin; Pearl River, NY (Horwith Trucks Inc., Horwith Trucks Inc., </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Robert Raymond Evans</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, Robert Raymond Evans)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">JUDGE: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Alison Y. Tuitt</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RANGE AMOUNT: 0</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">STATE: New York</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">COUNTY: Bronx</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">INJURIES: Hernandez claimed to have sustained a crush injury of her right foot, which resulted in fractures to two sesamoid bones, one at the great toe and one at the base of the fifth toe. Hernandez claimed that her podiatrist took his own X-rays and identified the fractures. She had a tear in the web space between her great toe and her second toe, which required nine stitches to close and resulted in a hypertrophic scar. She also claimed to have sustained peroneal nerve damage, resulting in a neuroma, which caused chronic pain and swelling of the right foot.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Facts:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">On Feb. 15, 2007, plaintiff Ann Hernandez, 28, a lab technician, was crossing Broadway at the intersection with West 225th Street, in the Bronx, when she was in an accident with a tractor-trailer driven by Robert Raymond Evans. Hernandez’s right foot was run over.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hernandez sued Evans and the tractor-trailer’s owner, Horwith Trucks Inc. She alleged that Evans was negligent in the operation of the vehicle and that Horwith Trucks was vicariously liable.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Hernandez had the right of way and that the “walk” signal was illuminated. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Hernandez crossed the street in the crosswalk and that Evans ran a red light.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defense counsel contended that Evans had the green light and that Hernandez darted onto the street. Defense counsel opined that Hernandez did not cross the street in the crosswalk. The responding police officer testified that Hernandez was not lying in either the north or south crosswalks when she arrived at the scene, minutes after the accident.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hernandez further claimed to have cervical strains and sprains, a bulging disc at C6-7, with radiculopathy into both arms and a disc herniation at L5-S1, with radiculopathy into both legs. She also fractured a tooth, which required a root canal and a crown. Hernandez also claimed that she had psychological problems from the accident, including nightmares, flashbacks and depression.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hernandez was taken to the emergency room via ambulance following the accident. She underwent a series of X-rays, received sutures for the tear on her foot and was released. She treated with a podiatrist and an orthopedist, who placed her in a walking boot. She also had several injections for pain and underwent physical therapy for two years.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hernandez claimed that she would need future treatment, including pain management and continuing treatment with her podiatrist. </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">She contended that her crown on her tooth would only last approximately five years so they would need to be replaced periodically.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hernandez claimed that she had chronic pain in her foot and swelling and that she couldn’t wear any type of heel or tight shoe. She contended that her neck and back still bothered her and that the teeth surrounding the fractured tooth had become painful. She claimed that she still had psychological issues, including depression, and that her social life had been impaired by the psychological trauma and chronic pain.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">At the time of the accident, Hernandez was working as a lab technician and enrolled in an internship program to become an ultrasound sonographer. She had to drop out of the internship program as a result of her injuries, and she missed three months of work. It took her an additional year to become an ultrasound sonographer, which paid approximately twice as much as being a lab technician.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff’s medical experts and economic rehabilitative expert testified that the nature of Hernandez’s injuries shortened her work-life expectancy. The economist testified that if Hernandez’s work-life expectancy was shortened by a year and a half then her damages were $245,000. If her work-life expectancy was shortened by seven years, then her damages were $1.1 million.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury for damages for past and future pain and suffering, future medical expenses, past lost wages and loss of future earnings potential as a result of a diminution of Hernandez’s future earning capacity.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defense counsel argued that Hernandez did not sustain the foot fractures. Defense counsel argued that X-rays taken right after the accident at the emergency room and six weeks after the accident were both negative for fractures.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Insurer:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Zurich North America for both defendants</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">ALM Properties, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Bronx Supreme</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">PUBLISHED IN: VerdictSearch New York Reporter Vol. 28, Issue 1</span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: xx-small;">End of Document</span></strong></td>
<td><span style="font-size: xx-small;">© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
</div>
<div>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Radhames Rodriguez v. VL Olympus Bagels and Nelson Akyuwen, 2010 WL 2277741 (2010)</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_128g6nfgkf6_b" alt="" width="78" height="10" /><span style="font-size: x-small;"> © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">2010 WL 2277741 (N.Y.Sup.) (Verdict and Settlement Summary)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright (c) 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Supreme Court, Twelfth Judicial District, Bronx County, New York.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Radhames Rodriguez v. VL Olympus Bagels and Nelson Akyuwen</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">No. 305030/08</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">DATE OF VERDICT/SETTLEMENT: April 21, 2010</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">TOPIC: MOTOR VEHICLE - NO-FAULT CASE - MOTOR VEHICLE - RED LIGHT - MOTOR VEHICLE - BROADSIDE - MOTOR VEHICLE - INTERSECTION - MOTOR VEHICLE - MULTIPLE VEHICLE</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Car Crash Caused Back, Neck Injuries, Plaintiff Claimed</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">SUMMARY:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RESULT: Verdict-Plaintiff</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Award Total: $60,000</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The jury found that Rodriguez’s damages totaled $60,000.</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">EXPERT WITNESSES:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Stephen Huish</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Physical Medicine; Bronx, NY</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Alan Greenfield</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Radiology; Forest Hills, NY </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Isaac Cohen</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Orthopedics; Rockville Centre, NY </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Michael J. Carciente</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Neurology; Brooklyn, NY</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">ATTORNEYS:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Richard E. Noll</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Bloom &amp; Noll LLP, Mineola, NY, trial counsel to Law Office of Melvin Maiman; Mineola, NY (Radhames Rodriguez)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: Joann Taylor; Law Office of Mary Audi Bjork; Tarrytown, NY (Nelson Akyuwen, VL Olympus Bagels)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">JUDGE: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Yvonne Gonzalez</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RANGE AMOUNT: $50,000-99,999</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">STATE: New York</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">COUNTY: Bronx</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">INJURIES: Rodriguez claimed that he sustained at disc herniation at L5-S1 with pressure on his left L5 nerve root. He also claimed that he developed disc bulges at L1-2 through L4-5 and C3-4 through C5-6. Rodriguez was taken to the emergency room, where he was released after 30 minutes. He missed approximately three days of work and started treating with a doctor a few days after the accident.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Facts:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">On Jan. 23, 2008, plaintiff Radhames Rodriguez, 40, a parking lot’s attendant, was driving on West 48th Street, near its intersection at 10th Avenue, in Manhattan. As he proceeded through the intersection, his vehicle was struck by a truck that was traveling on 10th Avenue. Rodriguez claimed that he sustained injuries of his back and neck. The truck’s driver fled the scene, but he was subsequently located and identified.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Rodriguez sued the truck’s driver, Nelson Akyuwen, and the truck’s owner, VL Olympus Bagels. Rodriguez alleged that Akyuwen was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Rodriguez further alleged that VL Olympus Bagels was vicariously liable for Akyuwen’s actions.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Rodriguez claimed that Akyuwen ignored a red traffic signal.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defense counsel conceded liability. The matter proceeded to a summary jury trial that addressed damages.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">MRIs were taken approximately six weeks after the accident, which showed disc herniations and bulges. An EMG taken about three months after the accident showed radiculopathy.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Rodriguez underwent physical therapy about twice a week for four months. He also underwent chiropractic treatment for approximately four months. Rodriguez claimed that he would need future physical therapy and medical examinations. He claimed that he still had neck and back pain.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Rodriguez testified that he returned to work because he had to financially support his family, despite the continued pain from his injuries.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff’s counsel introduced photographs of the damage done to the front end of Rodriguez’s car.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff’s counsel was seeking damages for past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defense counsel argued that Rodriguez wasn’t disabled and went back to work after only missing three days of work. Defense counsel argued that Rodriguez had recovered as he stopped treatment after four months so he did not need future medical treatment. </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Finally, defense counsel argued that Rodriguez’s claimed injuries related to a prior car accident that occurred more than 10 years earlier where he also sustained neck and back injuries.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Insurer:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Allstate Insurance Co. for both defendants</span><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Radhames Rodriguez</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">ALM Properties, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Bronx Supreme</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">PUBLISHED IN: VerdictSearch New York Reporter Vol. 28, Issue 1</span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: xx-small;">End of Document</span></strong></td>
<td><span style="font-size: xx-small;">© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
</div>
<div>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Lannette Sanabria v. Anthony Paduch, 2010 WL 2277726 (2010)</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_128g6nfgkf6_b" alt="" width="78" height="10" /><span style="font-size: x-small;"> © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">2010 WL 2277726 (N.Y.Sup.) (Verdict and Settlement Summary)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright (c) 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Supreme Court, Ninth Judicial District, Orange County, New York.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Lannette Sanabria v. Anthony Paduch</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">No. 2088/08</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">DATE OF VERDICT/SETTLEMENT: April 16, 2010</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">TOPIC: MOTOR VEHICLE - REVERSING VEHICLE - MOTOR VEHICLE - MULTIPLE VEHICLE - CIVIL PRACTICE - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - DAMAGES - PAIN AND SUFFERING - DAMAGES - MEDICAL EXPENSES</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff Claimed Car Crash Caused Neck, Knee and Ankle Injuries</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">SUMMARY:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RESULT: Verdict-Defendant</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Award Total: $0</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The jury rendered a defense verdict following the retrial. It found that Sanabria did not sustained a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member, and that Sanabria did not sustain a significant limitation of use of a body function or system as a result of the accident on Dec. 2, 2007. The jury also found that Sanabria did not sustain a medically determined, nonpermanent injury or impairment that prevented her performance of substantially all of the material acts that would have constituted the usual and customary daily activities of at least 90 of the 180 days that followed the accident.</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">EXPERT WITNESSES:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Vincent Gulfo</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Physical Medicine; Warwick, NY</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">A. Robert Tantleff</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Radiology; Roslyn, NY </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Robert C. Hendler</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Orthopedic Surgery; Goshen, NY</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">ATTORNEYS:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Edward C. Bruno</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Pine Bush, NY, trial counsel to </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Richard A. Bernsley</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Pine Bush, NY (Lannette Sanabria)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: Amy L. Schaefer; Law Office of Mary A. Bjork; Middletown, NY (Anthony Paduch)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">JUDGE: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Robert A. Onofry</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RANGE AMOUNT: 0</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">STATE: New York</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">COUNTY: Orange</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">INJURIES: The matter was tried in June 2009, but after two full days of deliberation and several notes from the jury, the jury advised the court that they could not reach a verdict on the third question, the 90/180 question. The court subsequently entered a mistrial on June 30, 2009.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Facts:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">On Dec. 2, 2007, plaintiff Lannette Sanabria, 36, a billing analyst at Drug World, was driving a four-door sedan on Goshen Turnpike in Wallkill when a Subaru truck began to back out of a driveway. A collision resulted when the front wheel well of her car was struck by the rear corner bumper of the truck driven by Anthony Paduch. Sanabria claimed that she injured her neck, left knee and left ankle in the accident.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Sanabria sued Paduch. She alleged that Paduch was negligent in the operation of his vehicle for failing to keep a proper lookout and for backing into a roadway when it was unsafe to do so.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff’s counsel moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and it was granted. The matter subsequently proceeded to a trial on damages only.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defense counsel made a post-trial motion to open the verdict and have the first two questions, regarding permanent consequential limitation and significant injury, read into the record, but it was denied.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">During the retrial of damages, Sanabria claimed that she first presented to her treating physician three days after the accident with complaints of pain to her neck, left knee and left ankle. She alleged that she sustained disc herniations at C4-5 and C5-6, and a medial meniscus tear of the left knee as a result of the accident. She also claimed that she sustained a tear of the talo-fibular ligament and partial tear of the lateral ligament of the left ankle. Sanabria ultimately underwent a partial medial meniscectomy on Feb. 20, 2008, and surgery on her left ankle in April 2008. She also underwent a course of physical therapy beginning on Jan. 4, 2008, to treat her cervical condition.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Sanabria claimed that suffers from continued pain in her neck, left knee and left ankle, but that the majority of the pain is to her neck. She alleged that she also suffers from a loss of range of motion to her cervical spine and that as a result, she can no longer perform some of the activities that she once enjoyed, such as dancing. She also claimed that she is unable to stand for long periods of time, was unable to help her daughter move into college and was unable to lift heavy prescription boxes at her job. Sanabria contended that she was unable to return to work from Dec. 3, 2007 through Dec. 10, 2007, and from Jan. 4, 2008 through February 2009. Sanabria alleged that she attempted to return to her job after February 2009, but that she was ultimately laid off. She further contended that she will need additional treatment in the future to address her injuries.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Thus, Sanabria sought recovery for her past and future pain and suffering.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defense counsel argued that Sanabria did not sustain a serious injury, as defined by the no-fault law, </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Insurance Law § 5102</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">(d).</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The defendant’s expert board-certified radiologist testified that a review of an MRI taken of the plaintiff’s left knee showed no meniscal tear whatsoever and no evidence of any acute injuries. He also testified that an MRI of the plaintiff’s left ankle showed no ligament tears, no abnormalities and no evidence of an acute injury whatsoever. The defendant’s expert radiologist further opined that that the MRI of the plaintiff’s cervical spine did not show any disc herniations.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The defendant’s expert board-certified orthopedic surgeon testified that after a review of the plaintiff’s medical records and a physical examination, he opined that Sanabria did not sustain a permanent injury or a significant loss of use as a result of the December 2007 accident. He opined that Sanabria might have sustained a neck strain and a possible contusion to the knee, but that she was back normal activities within four to six weeks. The defendant’s orthopedic surgery expert further opined that based on his findings, surgery was not necessary in Sanabria’s case.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defense counsel contended that Sanabria did not seek medical attention immediately after the accident and waited three days before seeing a physician. She also asserted that upon seeing the plaintiff’s treating expert physiatrist on Dec. 5, 2007, the physician prescribed a course of physical therapy to Sanabria, but that she did not go. Defense counsel contended that Sanabria did not actually start physical therapy until it was prescribed again by her doctor on Jan. 4, 2008. However, physical therapy treatment had to be interrupted a couple of times as a result of the scheduled surgical procedures. In addition, defense counsel presented the plaintiff’s physical therapy records from St. Anthony Community Hospital in Warwick dated Jan. 4, 2008, what stated that on that day, Sanabria appeared at the hospital for physical therapy wearing 4-inch heels and walking with a completely normal gait. Thus, defense counsel argued that Sanabria did not suffer any permanent disability. In addition, when she cross-examined the plaintiff’s expert about why he kept Sanabria out of work, he claimed that it was because of Sanabria’s neck injury, but acknowledged that concern over the plaintiff lifting heavy objects at work were not an issue because Sanabria had a desk job.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Insurer:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Allstate Insurance Co. for Anthony Paduch</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">ALM Properties, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Orange Supreme</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">PUBLISHED IN: VerdictSearch New York Reporter Vol. 28, Issue 1</span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: xx-small;">End of Document</span></strong></td>
<td><span style="font-size: xx-small;">© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
</div>
<div>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Erasmo Santos and Milagros Santos v. National Retail Transportation Inc&#8230;., 2010 WL 1953601 (2010)</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_128g6nfgkf6_b" alt="" width="78" height="10" /><span style="font-size: x-small;"> © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">2010 WL 1953601 (N.Y.Sup.) (Verdict and Settlement Summary)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright (c) 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Supreme Court, Twelfth Judicial District, Bronx County, New York.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Erasmo Santos and Milagros Santos v. National Retail Transportation Inc. and William Donaldson</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">No. 7327/07</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">DATE OF VERDICT/SETTLEMENT: April 16, 2010</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">TOPIC: MOTOR VEHICLE - LANE CHANGE - MOTOR VEHICLE - REAR-ENDER - MOTOR VEHICLE - MULTIPLE IMPACT - MOTOR VEHICLE - MULTIPLE VEHICLE</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Car Crash’s Parties Each Blamed Other’s Lane Change</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">SUMMARY:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RESULT: Verdict-Plaintiff</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Award Total: $120,000</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The jury found that Donaldson was negligent, but Santos was assigned 30-percent comparative negligence. It also found that Santos does not suffer permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member and that he did not suffer significant limitation of use of a body function or system, but it concluded that he sustained a serious injury. It determined that the plaintiffs’ damages totaled $120,000. The comparative-negligence reduction produced a net recovery of $84,000.</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">EXPERT WITNESSES:</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">ATTORNEYS:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Harvey G. Lockhart</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; trial counsel to Yankowitz Law Firm, P.C.; Great Neck, NY (Erasmo Santos, Milagros Santos)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Mario A. Batelli</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Foster &amp; Mazzie, LLC; Totowa, NJ (National Retail Transportation Inc., William Donaldson)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">JUDGE: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Geoffrey D. Wright</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RANGE AMOUNT: $100,000-199,999</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">STATE: New York</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">COUNTY: Bronx</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">INJURIES: Santos was placed in an ambulance, and he was transported to a hospital. He underwent minor treatment.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Facts:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">On Sept. 2, 2004, plaintiff Erasmo Santos, 50, a groundskeeper, was driving on the eastbound side of the Cross Bronx Expressway, near its interchange at Webster Avenue, in the Tremont section of the Bronx. Soon after he had passed the interchange, his vehicle’s rear end was struck by a trailing truck that was being driven by William Donaldson. Santos’ vehicle spun about 90 degrees, and the truck broadsided it and pushed it across a distance of some 100 feet. Santos claimed that he sustained an injury of a shoulder.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Santos sued Donaldson and his truck’s owner, National Retail Transportation Inc. Santos alleged that Donaldson was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Santos further alleged that National Retail Transportation was vicariously liable for Donaldson’s actions.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Santos claimed that he initially occupied the expressway’s right eastbound lane and that Donaldson was maintaining a trailing position in the center eastbound lane. He contended that Donaldson veered into the right lane and initiated the collision.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Donaldson contended that he had been maintaining a position in the right lane. He claimed that Santos suddenly veered into the right lane and entered the truck’s direct path. Donaldson contended that he could not have avoided the collision.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Santos ultimately claimed that he sustained a tear of his left, nondominant shoulder’s labrum. He also claimed that he developed impingement of the same shoulder’s subacromial region. He contended that he could not work during the few weeks that followed the accident.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">On Dec. 21, 2006, Santos underwent arthroscopic surgery. The procedure was followed by physical therapy, and Santos claimed that he could not work during the four weeks that followed the surgery. He has resumed a full workload, but he contended that he cannot lift heavy objects. He also contended that he suffers residual pain and that he cannot engage in some recreational activities, such as playing with his grandchildren.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Santos sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">His wife sought recovery of damages for her loss of consortium.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defense counsel contended that MRI scans suggested that Mr. Santos’ injuries stemmed from degenerative conditions that preceded the accident. Thus, he argued that Santos did not sustain a serious injury, as defined by the no-fault law, </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Insurance Law § 5102</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">(d).</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">ALM Properties, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Bronx Supreme</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">PUBLISHED IN: VerdictSearch New York Reporter Vol. 27, Issue 46</span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: xx-small;">End of Document</span></strong></td>
<td><span style="font-size: xx-small;">© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
</div>
<div>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Portia A. Hinton v. City of New York the Department of Parks &amp;&#8230;, 2010 WL 1648473 (2010)</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_128g6nfgkf6_b" alt="" width="78" height="10" /><span style="font-size: x-small;"> © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">2010 WL 1648473 (N.Y.Sup.) (Verdict and Settlement Summary)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright (c) 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Supreme Court, Twelfth Judicial District, Bronx County, New York.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Portia A. Hinton v. City of New York the Department of Parks &amp; Recreation of the City of New York, New York Yankees, New York Yankees Partnership &amp; “John Doe”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">No. 14126/07</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">DATE OF VERDICT/SETTLEMENT: April 09, 2010</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">TOPIC: PREMISES LIABILITY - DANGEROUS CONDITION - SLIPS, TRIPS &amp; FALLS - FALL FROM HEIGHT - GOVERNMENT - MUNICIPALITIES</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff Fell Off of Loading Dock, Claimed Railing Was Necessary</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">SUMMARY:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RESULT: Verdict-Plaintiff</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Award Total: $1,593,000</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The jury found that the defendants were liable for Hinton’s fall. It determined that Hinton’s damages totaled $1,593,000.</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">EXPERT WITNESSES:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Nicholas Bellizzi</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, P.E.; Engineering; Holmdel, NJ </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">William Clarke</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Occupational Medicine; Bronx, NY</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Jeffrey Ketchman, Ph.D</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">., P.E.; Engineering; Westport, CT </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Martin J. Barschi</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, M.D.; Orthopedic Surgery; White Plains, NY</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">ATTORNEYS:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Jeffrey A. Guzman</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Krentsel &amp; Guzman; New York, NY (Portia A. Hinton)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Lawrence S. Wasserman</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Gordon &amp; Silber, P.C.; New York, NY (New York City, Department of Parks and Recreation of the City of New York, New York Yankees, New York Yankees Partnership)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">JUDGE: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Kenneth L. Thompson</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RANGE AMOUNT: $1,000,000-1,999,999</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">STATE: New York</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">COUNTY: Bronx</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">INJURIES: Hinton sustained two hairline fractures of her pelvis. She was transported to a hospital, where she underwent about two weeks of palliative care. She subsequently underwent some six weeks of inpatient treatment at a rehabilitation center. Her fractures healed within three to six months of the accident.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Facts:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">On Aug. 14, 2006, plaintiff Portia Hinton, 48, a lunchroom’s attendant and a concessionaire, operated a pushcart in a concourse of Yankee Stadium, in the Bronx. While she was crossing a loading dock, she stepped aside to allow another worker to pass. Hinton and the cart fell off of the loading dock, and the cart fell onto Hinton. She sustained injuries of her pelvis.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hinton sued the stadium’s owner, the city of New York; one of the city’s agencies, the New York City Department of Parks &amp; Recreation; and the stadium’s operators, the New York Yankees and the New York Yankees Partnership.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The New York City Department of Parks &amp; Recreation was ultimately released from the suit. The matter proceeded to a trial against the remaining defendants.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hinton noted that the loading dock was guarded by rails on two sides but not on the side from which she fell. Hinton’s expert engineer noted that the loading dock abutted a pedestrian pathway, and he opined that the pathway’s proximity necessitated the presence of a removable fence, gate or guardrail that could be deployed when a truck did not occupy the loading bay. He contended that the absence of such protection constituted a departure from good, accepted engineering standards. He also contended that the unprotected platform violated a municipal code.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The defense’s expert engineer contended that the New York City Building Code does not include any requirement for a fence or rail on the loading side of a loading dock. He noted that New York state guidelines must be followed when the New York City Building Code is silent on an issue, and he contended that the state’s guidelines include a specific exemption for railings on the loading side of a loading dock.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defense counsel moved for summary judgment, but the motion was denied. The motion is pending before the appellate division.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hinton claimed that she suffers residual pain that stems from her back and her right hip. She undergoes weekly physical therapy. Hinton’s treating therapist opined that Hinton suffers residual myofascial pain syndrome. Hinton contended that she cannot endure prolonged periods in which she is standing or walking, that she cannot lift objects that weigh more than 20 pounds, and that she has had to stop all work other than her lunchroom attendant’s job. She claimed that she previously worked two or three jobs simultaneously. She contended that she will continue to require palliative care such as anti-inflammatory medication, pain-management treatment and physical therapy.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hinton sought recovery of her past and future medical expenses, her past lost earnings, and damages for her past and future pain and suffering.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that Hinton has fully recovered.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">ALM Properties, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Bronx Supreme</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">PUBLISHED IN: VerdictSearch New York Reporter Vol. 27, Issue 43</span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: xx-small;">End of Document</span></strong></td>
<td><span style="font-size: xx-small;">© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
</div>
<div>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Frank Campanella v. Jeffrey J. Basti, 2010 WL 1747551 (2010)</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_128g6nfgkf6_b" alt="" width="78" height="10" /><span style="font-size: x-small;"> © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">2010 WL 1747551 (N.Y.Sup.) (Verdict and Settlement Summary)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright (c) 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Supreme Court, Second Judicial District, Kings County, New York.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Frank Campanella v. Jeffrey J. Basti</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">No. 32640/07</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">DATE OF VERDICT/SETTLEMENT: April 08, 2010</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">TOPIC: PREMISES LIABILITY - DANGEROUS CONDITION</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Deliveryman Claimed Blocked Entrance Led to Injury</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">SUMMARY:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RESULT: Verdict-Defendant</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Award Total: $0</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The jury rendered a defense verdict.</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">EXPERT WITNESSES:</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">ATTORNEYS:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Steven H. Beldock</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Birbrower &amp; Beldock, P.C.; New City, NY (Frank Campanella, Frank Campanella)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Charles J. Marchello</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Richard T. Lau</span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> &amp; Associates; Jericho, NY (Jeffrey J. Basti)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">JUDGE: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Debra Silber</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RANGE AMOUNT: 0</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">STATE: New York</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">COUNTY: Kings</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">INJURIES: The trial was bifurcated. Damages were not before the court.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Facts:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">On Sept. 28, 2006, plaintiff Frank Campanella, 48, a deliveryman, drove to a Brooklyn medical office owned by Jeffrey Basti. Campanella had previously made deliveries to the building, but e had always used a rear-entrance ramp, which was obstructed by a truck on this day. Campanella was told that the vehicle could not be moved, and he was asked to bring the tank up a side staircase. While walking the hand truck backward up the staircase, Campanella struck his left elbow on the staircase molding. He claimed that he sustained injuries.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Campanella sued Basti. Campanella alleged that Basti failed to provide a safe entrance to the premises, thus creating a dangerous condition.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The defense asserted that since the stairs were not in disrepair to any degree there was no dangerous condition. This led to the defense counsel to argue that Campanella’s accident and resulting injuries were his own fault and that Basti was not liable.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Campanella suffered a rupture of the triceps tendon with moderate to severe ulnarcranon bursitis, and would develop elbow entrapment syndrome of his ulnar nerve. He underwent neruolysis of the ulnar nerve and was diagnosed with avulsed bony fragments, which occurs when a fragment of bone tears away from the main mass of bone, at the torn edge of the triceps tendon. Campanella’s injuries were all to his left arm, his nondominant side.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Campanella would also develop tendonosis involving the common extensor tendon and degeneration and fraying involving the lateral ulnar collateral ligament.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Campanella also experienced small joint effusion of his left elbow, mild ulnar neuritis and carpel tunnel syndrome of his left wrist.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Campanella underwent two operations for his injuries to repair the triceps tendon.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Campanella contended that his injuries left his with nerve damage, a 30-percent loss of use of his left arm and elbow, and a 40-percent loss of use of his left arm due to nerve damage and carpal tunnel syndrome.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Campanella claimed that he was unable to participate in weight lifting following the incident and had missed eight months of work. He had approximately $80,000 in workers’ compensation liens.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Campanella sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Insurer:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">ALM Properties, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Kings Supreme</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">PUBLISHED IN: VerdictSearch New York Reporter Vol. 27, Issue 45</span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: xx-small;">End of Document</span></strong></td>
<td><span style="font-size: xx-small;">© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
</div>
<div>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Susan L. Kwok v. MB Fuel Transport, Inc, 2010 WL 1747553 (2010)</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_128g6nfgkf6_b" alt="" width="78" height="10" /><span style="font-size: x-small;"> © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">2010 WL 1747553 (N.Y.Sup.) (Verdict and Settlement Summary)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright (c) 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Supreme Court, Second Judicial District, Kings County, New York.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Susan L. Kwok v. MB Fuel Transport, Inc</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">No. 19632/07</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">DATE OF VERDICT/SETTLEMENT: April 08, 2010</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">TOPIC: PREMISES LIABILITY - TRIP AND FALL - SLIPS, TRIPS &amp; FALLS - SIDEWALK</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Oil Delivery Hose a Tripping Hazard, Plaintiff Alleged</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">SUMMARY:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RESULT: Verdict-Defendant</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Award Total: $0</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The jury rendered a defense verdict.</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">EXPERT WITNESSES:</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">ATTORNEYS:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">John K. Avanzino</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">John Avanzino</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, P.C.; Brooklyn, NY (Susan L. Kwok, M.D.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Gregory Lewis</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; The Law Offices of Edward Garfinkel; Brooklyn, NY (MB Fuel Transport Inc.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">JUDGE: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Jack M. Battaglia</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RANGE AMOUNT: 0</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">STATE: New York</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">COUNTY: Kings</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">INJURIES: Kwok was taken to St. Vincent’s Hospital, where she was diagnosed with a fracture to her right orbital bone. She underwent open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture and had regular follow-up treatments with examinations to ensure proper healing.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Facts:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">On Feb. 5, 2007, plaintiff Susan Kwok, M.D., 44, a doctor, was exiting her workplace in Manhattan when she tripped on an oil hose being used by MB Fuel Transport to make a delivery at the location. Kwok claimed that she sustained an injury of her face.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Kwok sued MB Fuel Transport, alleging that it had been negligent in conducting delivery operations by failing to place cones or provide sufficient warnings of the presence of the oil hose.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Kwok claimed that while exiting the glass doors of her workplace, she did not visually observe the truck or observe the hose. A co-worker who had assisted Kwok after her fall testified that he did not notice the hose and had almost tripped over the hose himself. The co-worker also testified that there were no cones placed near the hose.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The security guard on duty at the building also testified for Kwok as he responded to the incident and had gotten information from the delivery driver. The security guard corroborated Kwok’s account that cones had not been placed around the hose, which he observed while obtaining information from the delivery driver. The security guard also testified that he could see there were no cones near the oil hose from inside the building.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defense counsel questioned the relationship between Kwok and her co-worker, who had not been in contact with Kwok for 2.5 years between the accident and the trial. Kwok had admitted that they had spoken recently about her brother and denied speaking about the trial or testimony. Defense counsel also questioned why Kwok’s counsel had gone to certain lengths to show that Kwok and the co-worker witness were not in collusion.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defense counsel countered that their conversation was too “coincidental” because it occurred two days before their testimony after not speaking for more than two years.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defense counsel also attempted to impeach Kwok’s credibility by showing prior inconsistent deposition testimony. Kwok denied ever seeing the oil truck in front of her workplace at trial, which was in contrast to her deposition, at which she testified that she saw an oil truck at least two times in front of the building before the accident.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The defense made the point that the delivery driver had to make another delivery in the same area shortly after the accident and that by the time the security guard responded, the cones and hose may have been moved.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defense counsel also noted that from where the oil truck had been parked, it would have been impossible to observe the rear of the truck, the oil hose, or any cones from inside the building as the security guard had claimed.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The driver for MB Fuel testified that he had placed cones in the area around the hose before the accident had occurred.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Kwok contended that she was left with some slight scarring around her right eye and that since the accident, she has had continuous double vision from time to time. As a result, she claimed she was unable to read for long periods of time or treat as many patients as she would.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">After the injury Kwok missed approximately two to three months of work and incurred about $10,000 in lost wages.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Kwok sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering and past lost wages.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Insurer:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Chartis Inc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">ALM Properties, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Kings Supreme</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">PUBLISHED IN: VerdictSearch New York Reporter Vol. 27, Issue 45</span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: xx-small;">End of Document</span></strong></td>
<td><span style="font-size: xx-small;">© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
</div>
<div>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Dorothy Brannum v. Senad Galijasevic and JB Hunt Transport, Inc., 2010 WL 1747561 (2010)</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_128g6nfgkf6_b" alt="" width="78" height="10" /><span style="font-size: x-small;"> © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">2010 WL 1747561 (N.Y.Sup.) (Verdict and Settlement Summary)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright (c) 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Supreme Court, Second Judicial District, Kings County, New York.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Dorothy Brannum v. Senad Galijasevic and JB Hunt Transport, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">No. 4429/08</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">DATE OF VERDICT/SETTLEMENT: April 06, 2010</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">TOPIC: MOTOR VEHICLE - MULTIPLE VEHICLE</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Motorist Swiped Parked Tractor-trailer, Defense Contended</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">SUMMARY:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RESULT: Verdict-Defendant</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Award Total: $0</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The jury rendered a defense verdict.</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">EXPERT WITNESSES:</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">ATTORNEYS:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ernest Reece</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Krentsel &amp; Guzman LLP; New York, NY (Dorothy Brannum)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defendant: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Robert A. Fitch</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Rawle &amp; Henderson, LLP; New York, NY (JB Hunt Transport Inc., Senad Galijasevic); </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Jared Cooper</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">; Rawle &amp; Henderson, LLP; New York, NY (JB Hunt Transport Inc., Senad Galijasevic)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">JUDGE: Loren Baily-Schiffman</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">RANGE AMOUNT: 0</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">STATE: New York</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">COUNTY: Kings</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">INJURIES: The trial was bifurcated. Damages were not before the court.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">Facts:</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">On Oct. 2, 2007, plaintiff Dorothy Brannum, who was retired and in her 60s, was in an accident with a tractor-trailer driven by Senad Galijasevic near the intersection of Rockaway Boulevard and Newport Street, in Brooklyn. She sustained an injury to her knee.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Brannum sued Galijasevic and JB Hunt Transport, which owned the tractor-trailer and employed Galijasevic. She alleged that Galijasevic was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that JB Hunt was vicariously liable.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Galijasevic was double parked and that, as Brannum attempted to go around the tractor-trailer, Galijasevic moved the vehicle and struck her car.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Defense counsel argued that Galijasevic was parked and did not move the tractor-trailer. Defense counsel argued that Brannum struck the tractor-trailer. Defense counsel contended that photographs taken by Galijasevic showed the damage to the back of the tractor-trailer was more of a sideswipe, which supported Galijasevic’s version of the accident.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The responding police officer testified that Brannum gave inconsistent statements about how the accident occurred. The police officer and another eyewitness testified that the truck was parked when the accident occurred.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Brannum claimed that she suffered general neck and back pain. She also claimed to have sustained a torn meniscus in her left knee. She left the scene of the accident and went to the hospital later that day. MRI scans taken approximately six months after the accident showed degenerative conditions in her back and neck. She underwent arthroscopic surgery for the meniscus tear approximately six months after the accident. After her surgery, Brannum underwent physical therapy two to three times a week for three months.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Brannum claimed to have continued neck and back pain and problems with her knee. She also claimed that she may need a future knee replacement. She claimed that she could no longer do her normal daily activities. She sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">ALM Properties, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Kings Supreme</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">PUBLISHED IN: VerdictSearch New York Reporter Vol. 27, Issue 45</span></p>
<table class="zeroBorder" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><span style="font-size: xx-small;">End of Document</span></strong></td>
<td><span style="font-size: xx-small;">© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><img src="https://docs.google.com/File?id=dd34rdgv_129xhs5cwcx_b" alt="" width="133" height="33" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<div><span><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/ten-most-recent-truck-accident-verdicts-in-ny-courts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Trucking Regulations</title>
		<link>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/federal-trucking-regulations/</link>
		<comments>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/federal-trucking-regulations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:51:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Truck Accidents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/?p=135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[9 CFR 350: Commercial Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
<p>The primary motivation of this part is to ensure that the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), individual states, and
other political jurisdictions unify to develop and implement programs
that will ultimately improve motor carrier, CMV, and driver safety and
establish a safer and more efficient transportation system.</p>
</p>
<a id="382" name="382"></a>49 CFR 382: Controlled Substances and
Alcohol Use and Testing
<p>The function of 49 CFR 382 is to establish programs within trucking
companies designed to prevent accidents and injuries resulting from
impairment due to the use of alcohol or drugs by drivers of commercial
motor vehicles. This part applies to all who [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2>9 CFR 350: Commercial Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program</h2>
<p>The primary motivation of this part is to ensure that the Federal<br />
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), individual states, and<br />
other political jurisdictions unify to develop and implement programs<br />
that will ultimately improve motor carrier, CMV, and driver safety and<br />
establish a safer and more efficient transportation system.</p>
</p>
<h2><a id="382" name="382"></a>49 CFR 382: Controlled Substances and<br />
Alcohol Use and Testing</h2>
<p>The function of 49 CFR 382 is to establish programs within trucking<br />
companies designed to prevent accidents and injuries resulting from<br />
impairment due to the use of alcohol or drugs by drivers of commercial<br />
motor vehicles. This part applies to all who drive a commercial motor<br />
vehicle in the United States and their employers including any employer<br />
who employs himself as a driver. There are a few exceptions, however.<br />
For example, some states have to waive from the requirements of part 382<br />
 for certain individuals including active duty personnel, members of the<br />
 reserves, and members of the national guard on active duty. This part<br />
is subject to the CDL requirements of part 383, the federal requirements<br />
 in Mexico and Canada.</p>
<p>49 CFR 382 also states that all employers of commercial motor vehicle<br />
 drivers have to be certain that all alcohol or drug testing complies<br />
with the procedures indicated in part 40 of this title.</p>
<p>Drivers required to have a commercial driver&#8217;s license under part 383<br />
 must be tested if they drive a vehicle:</p>
<ul>
<li>weighing more than 26,000 pounds including a towed unit weighing<br />
more than 10,000 pounds,</li>
<li>with a gross vehicle rating of more than 26,000 pounds,</li>
<li>designed to transport 16 or more passengers including the driver, or</li>
<li>used to transport hazardous materials requiring the vehicle to be<br />
placarded.</li>
</ul>
<p>49 CFR §382.107: DEFINITIONS</p>
<p>One notable part of 49 CFR §382.107 is the definition of<br />
safety-sensitive functions. A safety-sensitive function is being<br />
performed when:</p>
<ul>
<li>any activity a driver is involved in while waiting to be dispatched,</li>
<li>a driver is servicing his vehicle or performing an inspection,</li>
<li>a driver is actually driving his vehicle,</li>
<li>a driver is in any way involved with loading or unloading the<br />
vehicle, or</li>
<li>a driver is repairing a vehicle or waiting by it for assistance.</li>
</ul>
<p>The regulations in this part specify that alcohol or drugs must not<br />
be used while performing safety-sensitive functions. Alcohol must not be<br />
 consumed within 4 hours of performing a safety-sensitive function.</p>
<p>49 CFR §382.201-382.211: PROHIBITED CONDUCT</p>
<p>A driver will no longer be allowed to operate a commercial motor<br />
vehicle if he engages in prohibited conduct. Prohibited conduct<br />
includes:</p>
<ul>
<li>reporting for duty if he has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02<br />
or greater,</li>
<li>possessing alcohol unless it is part of a shipment, including<br />
medications like cough syrup or cold medicine that contain alcohol,</li>
<li>consuming alcohol while performing safety-sensitive functions,</li>
<li>consuming alcohol within 8 hours proceeding an accident or until<br />
after being tested,</li>
<li>reporting for duty while using any drug that affects his ability to<br />
safely operate a motor vehicle, or</li>
<li>refusing to submit to any DOT mandated alcohol or drug test. Testing<br />
 methods include breath and saliva testing, blood testing, and urine<br />
testing.</li>
</ul>
<p>Although background checks involving a driver&#8217;s history of drug and<br />
alcohol use can only be obtained with the signature of the driver, any<br />
employer can make signing that authorization a condition of employment.</p>
<p>49 CFR §382.301-382.309: WHEN DRIVERS MUST BE TESTED</p>
<p>If a driver refuses to take a required drug or alcohol test he will<br />
be disciplined as if he tested positive. Commercial drivers must be<br />
tested before they are employed, although there are a few exceptions to<br />
this. Drivers may also be tested at random, as all employers are<br />
required to have a random selection program to test drivers for signs of<br />
 drug and alcohol use. After an accident that produces a fatality, a<br />
driver is the recipient of a moving violation in a DOT-recordable<br />
accident, or there is reasonable suspicion to believe a driver may be<br />
under the influence of drugs or alcohol, testing may be required. An<br />
accident is DOT-recordable if an injured person requires immediate<br />
medical treatment away from the scene or if any vehicles involved have<br />
to be towed. If it is confirmed that a driver has a blood alcohol<br />
concentration of 0.04 or greater he must be evaluated by a substance<br />
abuse professional and take another test with a result below .02 in<br />
order to return to work, and could be subject to follow-up testing for<br />
up to five years. If a test is required but for some reason not<br />
administered, the employer has to make a record of why the test was not<br />
properly administered.</p>
<p>49 CFR 382.413: PREVIOUS TEST RECORDS</p>
<p>As a condition of employment, a driver is required to provide any new<br />
 company he works for with a written authorization for all employers<br />
within the previous two years to release all drug and alcohol testing<br />
records. Within 14 days of performing a safety-sensitive function, DOT<br />
regulations require that the driver&#8217;s company obtain drug and alcohol<br />
testing records from the driver&#8217;s previous employers for up to two years<br />
 in order to verify that no prior employer of the driver holds records<br />
indicating a violation of any DOT rule pertaining to drug or alcohol<br />
use.</p>
<p>If a driver tests positive for being under the influence of drugs or<br />
alcohol he has the option of requesting a medical review officer to have<br />
 half of the sample tested by a different certified lab than the one<br />
that tested the primary specimen. This is typically done within 72 hours<br />
 of a driver being notified of a positive test result.</p>
</p>
<h2><a id="383" name="383"></a>49 CFR 383: Commercial Driver&#8217;s License<br />
Standards; Requirements and Penalties</h2>
<p>The function 49 CFR 383 is to reduce or prevent truck and bus<br />
accidents the resulting injuries and deaths by requiring drivers of<br />
certain vehicles to obtain a single commercial motor vehicle driver&#8217;s<br />
license and by disqualifying drivers who operate commercial motor<br />
vehicles in an unsafe manner.</p>
<p>With a few exceptions, drivers must have a CDL if they:</p>
<ul>
<li>drive a vehicle of more than 26,000 pounds</li>
<li>transport themselves and 15 or more passengers, or</li>
<li>transport hazardous materials.</li>
</ul>
<p>49 CFR §383.21: LICENSE REQUIREMENT</p>
<p>The driver of any commercial motor vehicle can only have one license<br />
issued by the state where he lives-a CDL (commercial driver&#8217;s license).</p>
<p>49 CFR §383.31-§383.33: NOTIFICATION OF CONVICTIONS FOR DRIVER<br />
VIOLATIONS</p>
<p>If a driver is convicted of any motor vehicle violation besides a<br />
parking violation he must inform both his employer and the state that<br />
issued his CDL in writing within 30 days of the conviction. He must also<br />
 inform his employer in writing of a suspended or revoked license before<br />
 the end of the first business day post-conviction.</p>
<p>49 CFR §383.35: NOTIFICATION OF PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT</p>
<p>During the application process for any employment involving the use<br />
of a CDL the potential driver is required to produce his employment<br />
history for the prior 10 years he operated a commercial vehicle.</p>
<p>49 CFR §383.71: LICENSING PROCEDURES</p>
<p>If a CDL is to be issued to an individual he must pass a knowledge<br />
and driving skills test in a motor vehicle comparable to the type of<br />
vehicle he will be driving. He must also certify that he has no<br />
suspensions, disqualifications, or licenses from other states.</p>
<p>49 CFR §383.91: VEHICLE GROUPS AND ENDORSEMENTS</p>
<p>The various types of commercial motor vehicles are divided into three<br />
 groups: combination vehicles, heavy straight vehicles, and small<br />
vehicles. Combination vehicles have a combined weight of more than<br />
26,000 pounds if the weight of the vehicle being towed is more than<br />
10,000 pounds. Heavy straight vehicles include any single vehicle<br />
weighing more than 26,000 pounds or a vehicle weighing 26,001 pounds<br />
towing a vehicle weighing 10,000 pounds or less. Small vehicles are any<br />
single vehicle or combination of vehicles that do not fall into the<br />
other groups but are used to either transport a placarded amount of<br />
material or transport 16 or more passengers including the driver.</p>
<p>There are some endorsements that are required on a license. Each<br />
endorsement requires both a knowledge and behind-the-wheel test if, for<br />
example, a driver will be driving a vehicle equipped with air brakes.</p>
<p>49 CFR §383.110: REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS</p>
<p>All drivers must be well-versed in the various procedures that ensure<br />
 safe vehicle operation and be informed of the ill effects of being<br />
fatigued while driving, having poor vision, using alcohol and drugs, and<br />
 improperly using the lights, horn, mirrors, and other emergency<br />
equipment. Drivers must have knowledge of all driver-related elements of<br />
 the regulations contained in parts 391, 392, 393, 395, 396 and 397.</p>
<p>Drivers must also have a basic grasp of all factors involved in<br />
actually driving the vehicle-shifting, backing, space management,<br />
etc.-and are required to demonstrate both driving and inspection skills<br />
for whatever type of vehicle they intend to operate.</p>
<p>49 CFR §383.131: TEST PROCEDURES</p>
<p>All tests within the state must be standardized, and those<br />
administering the tests must first be trained to do so. States must have<br />
 available manuals lending information including the procedures,<br />
requirements, and skills needed to obtain and CDL, and information on<br />
the actual test.</p>
<p>
<a linkindex="32" target="_blank" href="http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/49cfr383_04.html">Click<br />
 here</a>&nbsp;to view the text of 49 CFR 383 in its entirety.</p>
<p></p>
<h2><a id="391" name="391"></a>49 CFR 391: Qualifications of Drivers</h2>
<p>Compliance with the following regulations is required if a driver<br />
operates a tractor-trailer or other commercial motor vehicle that weighs<br />
 more than 10,000 pounds, carries 16 or more passengers, or transports<br />
an amount of hazardous materials that requires the vehicle to be<br />
placarded.</p>
<p>In 49 CFR 391 the minimum qualifications for drivers of commercial<br />
motor vehicles are established. The minimum duties of motor carriers<br />
with respect to the qualifications of their drivers are also<br />
established.</p>
<p>Truck drivers for commercial motor carriers must be 21 years old,<br />
speak English, be physically able to safely operate a truck, have a<br />
valid CDL, and must not have ever been disqualified for driving while<br />
intoxicated, driving under the influence of drugs, committing a felony,<br />
leaving the scene of an accident, refusing to take an alcohol test, or<br />
any other reason. The driver and the truck company must keep records of<br />
the driver&#8217;s violations. The truck driver must also have a physical exam<br />
 every 2 years and should not have diabetes requiring insulin, high<br />
blood pressure, poor vision, poor hearing, current diagnosis of being an<br />
 alcoholic, or use dangerous substances including some over-the-counter<br />
and prescription medication. The specifics of when a person&#8217;s medical<br />
condition prohibit him from driving are complicated and dependant upon a<br />
 doctor&#8217;s examination.</p>
<p>49 CFR §391.15: DISQUALIFICATION OF DRIVERS</p>
<p>A driver can be disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle<br />
if he drives with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more, drives<br />
under the influence of drugs, commits a felony involving a commercial<br />
motor vehicle, leaves the scene of an accident while driving a<br />
commercial motor vehicle, transports, possesses, or unlawfully uses<br />
drugs, refuses to undergo alcohol testing, or fails to notify his<br />
employer of a suspended, revoked, or withdrawn permit or privilege to<br />
operate a commercial motor vehicle before the end of the business day<br />
post-revocation.</p>
<p>49 CFR §391.21: APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT</p>
<p>When an individual applies for a job involving the operation of a<br />
commercial motor vehicle, the application must contain the following<br />
information:</p>
<ul>
<li>employer name and address,</li>
<li>driver&#8217;s name, address, date of birth, and social security number,</li>
<li>driver&#8217;s previous addresses for the past three years,</li>
<li>date of the application,</li>
<li>state, number, and expiration date of driver&#8217;s license,</li>
<li>list of all motor vehicle accidents and violations for the last<br />
three years,</li>
<li>any driver&#8217;s license suspensions or revocations,</li>
<li>list of all employers for the last three years</li>
<li>any driver&#8217;s license suspensions or revocations,</li>
<li>list of all past employers for the last three years, or an<br />
additional seven years if the motor vehicle the driver will operate<br />
weighs 26,001 pounds or more, will carry more than 15 passengers, or<br />
will carry an amount of hazardous materials that requires the vehicle to<br />
 be placarded, and</li>
<li>driver&#8217;s permission to contact previous employers.</li>
</ul>
<p>49 CFR §391.23: INVESTIGATION AND INQUIRIES</p>
<p>Every year employers are required to review a driver&#8217;s driving record<br />
 to determine whether or not the driver meets the minimum requirements<br />
for safe driving. The employers must consider all violations, including<br />
but not limited to reckless driving, operating under the influence of<br />
drugs or alcohol, and showing a blatant disregard for public safety.</p>
<p>Employers are required to check a driver&#8217;s record for the past three<br />
years and the responses of each state agency. The employer must also<br />
check and record in writing the driver&#8217;s previous employment record for<br />
the last 3 years.</p>
<p>49 CFR §391.27: RECORD OF VIOLATIONS</p>
<p>Every 12 months a driver must fill out a form listing any violations<br />
of which he has been convicted. Even if no violations have occurred, the<br />
 driver still must complete the form and indicate as much. A driver must<br />
 inform his employer within 30 days of any violation or conviction.</p>
<p>49 CFR §391.31: ROAD TEST</p>
<p>All drivers must pass a road test while driving the same type of<br />
motor vehicle they will be driving under their employment. The road test<br />
 must include a pre-trip inspection, coupling and uncoupling (if<br />
applicable), driving the vehicle using the controls and emergency<br />
equipment, passing other vehicles, turning, braking, and slowing by<br />
means other than braking, backing, and parking.</p>
<p>It is acceptable for an employer to require a road test even if the<br />
driver produces a valid driver&#8217;s license or certificate issued by<br />
another carrier within the last three years. However, this doesn&#8217;t apply<br />
 if the driver will be operating a commercial vehicle that requires a<br />
doubles/triples endorsement or a cargo tanker.</p>
<p>49 CFR §391.41: PHYSICAL QUALIFICATION AND EXAMINATIONS</p>
<p>In order to drive a commercial motor vehicle a driver must have a<br />
physical exam every 24 months and carry a card documenting the exam at<br />
all times. If a driver has lost a limb or digit and its absence<br />
interferes with his ability to drive, has diabetes controlled by<br />
insulin, has heart disease, breathing problems, high blood pressure or<br />
any sickness which might interfere with driving, has mental problems,<br />
poor vision, poor hearing, a drug problem or a current clinical<br />
diagnosis of alcoholism he is prohibited from driving a commercial motor<br />
 vehicle.</p>
<p>49 CFR §391.51: DRIVER QUALIFICATION FILES</p>
<p>An employer must keep a driver&#8217;s qualification files throughout the<br />
entirety of the driver&#8217;s employment and an extra 3 years. This is with<br />
the exception of materials that need to be reviewed and updated. There<br />
are limited exemptions for drivers who were regularly employed before<br />
January 1, 1971 under 391.61.</p>
<p>49 CFR §391.63: INTERMITTENT, CASUAL, OR OCCASIONAL DRIVERS</p>
<p>If a driver is used by multiple carriers in a period of 7 consecutive<br />
 days he is referred to as an intermittent, casual, or occasional<br />
driver. Such a driver&#8217;s must keep his medical certificate, road test,<br />
driver&#8217;s name and social security number and identification number in<br />
his driver qualification file. This information must be kept by the<br />
motor carrier for 3 years after the end of the driver&#8217;s employment.</p>
<p>A driver regularly employed by one motor carrier may be used by<br />
another carrier without following the driver qualification file<br />
requirements if he has a signed and dated certificate that displays his<br />
name and signature and indicates regular employment and driver<br />
qualification. It must also have the expiration date of both his medical<br />
 exam and the certificate itself on it, and the driver must assume<br />
responsibility for the accuracy of the certificate. There are a few<br />
exceptions under §393.67 for drivers who operate farm equipment.</p>
<h2><a id="392" name="392"></a>49 CFR 392: Driving of Commercial Motor<br />
Vehicles</h2>
<p>In order to operate a tractor-trailer, straight truck, tanker, and<br />
other commercial motor vehicles involved in interstate travel, the truck<br />
 driver, his company, and all others responsible for the management,<br />
maintenance, operation, or driving of commercial motor vehicles or the<br />
hiring, supervision, training, assigning or dispatching of drivers must<br />
follow federal regulations. A driver must not drive while ill or<br />
fatigued. The driver may not use drugs illegally, but may take<br />
medication under the advice of a doctor if it doesn&#8217;t affect his ability<br />
 to drive. Drivers must obey the speed limit, load cargo safely and<br />
perform periodic inspections, must drive with extreme caution in<br />
hazardous situations, use seat belts, and warn the public when a truck<br />
is stopped on the shoulder of the road. Drivers must also be able to<br />
stop before reaching a railroad track, and must stop when carrying a<br />
trailer or hazardous materials. Drivers must not shift when crossing<br />
tracks.</p>
<p>49 CFR §392.3: ILL OR FATIGUED OPERATOR</p>
<p>If a driver is ill or fatigued to a degree that it may cause him to<br />
be a danger to others on the road he must not drive. If the driver is<br />
already on the road when he realizes this he may continue to drive to<br />
the nearest safe place.</p>
<p>49 CFR §392.4: DRUGS AND OTHER SUBSTANCES</p>
<p>A driver may take prescribed medication if it doesn&#8217;t have side<br />
effects that might result in unsafe driving, but may not take any drugs<br />
that might render him unable to safely operate a commercial motor<br />
vehicle.</p>
<p>49 CFR §392.5: ALCOHOL PROHIBITION</p>
<p>Drivers are prohibited from drinking, possessing, or being under the<br />
influence of alcohol while on duty, and are prohibited from drinking or<br />
being under the influence of alcohol within 4 hours of going on duty. In<br />
 the event that a driver has used alcohol within 4 hours of going on<br />
duty, his employer must neither require nor permit him to drive, and the<br />
 driver must immediately be placed out-of-service for 24 hours. Also,<br />
the driver must report the incident to the state where he holds a<br />
driver&#8217;s license within 30 days.</p>
<p>49 CFR §392.6: SCHEDULES TO CONFORM WITH SPEED LIMITS</p>
<p>Drivers may not speed in order to keep a schedule.</p>
<p>49 CFR §392.7-§392.8: EQUIPMENT, INSPECTION, AND USE</p>
<p>Before operating a vehicle, drivers are responsible for ensuring that<br />
 all brakes, the steering mechanism, the lights and reflectors, tires,<br />
horn, windshield wipers, mirrors, coupling devices, and all emergency<br />
equipment are in good working order.</p>
<p>49 CFR §392.9: SAFE LOADING</p>
<p>At the beginning of a trip, after the initial 25 miles traveled, and,<br />
 depending on which comes first, every 3 hours or 150 miles of each<br />
change of duty status cargo must be inspected to make sure it is<br />
properly distributed and secured.</p>
<p>Bus drivers need to be sure all passengers are behind the standee<br />
line, and that baggage is stored and secured in a safe manner that<br />
prevents any restriction of movement by both the driver and passengers.</p>
<p>The rules in this section don&#8217;t apply if the cargo is sealed,<br />
impractical to inspect, or if the driver was ordered not to inspect it.</p>
<p>49 CFR §392.9b: HEARING AID TO BE WORN</p>
<p>Drivers requiring a hearing aid to pass a physical must wear it at<br />
all times while driving and carry a spare battery with them.</p>
<p>49 CFR §392.10-§392.11: DRIVING OF VEHICLES</p>
<p>When approaching railroad crossings, all commercial motor vehicles<br />
must slow down enough so that if they had to they could stop before<br />
reaching the first rail. Certain railroad crossings are exempt.</p>
<p>Commercial motor vehicles carrying hazardous materials or with tank<br />
trailers must come to a full stop before the tracks at railroad<br />
crossings, and may not shift while driving over tracks.</p>
<p>49 CFR §392.14: HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS; EXTREME CAUTION</p>
<p>When operating in hazardous conditions like snow, fog, sleet, mist,<br />
rain, dust, or smoke drivers are to use extreme caution, and drive to<br />
the nearest safe place and only resume driving when the hazardous<br />
conditions clear.</p>
<p>49 CFR §392.16: USE OF SEAT BELTS</p>
<p>If the vehicle is equipped with seat belts, drivers are required to<br />
wear them.</p>
<p>49 CFR §392.22: STOPPED VEHICLES</p>
<p>Hazard warning lights must be on and warning devices placed in the<br />
appropriate locations within 10 minutes if a commercial motor vehicle is<br />
 stopped on any part of the highway. A warning device should be placed<br />
on the traffic side about 10 feet from the vehicle in the direction of<br />
approaching traffic; another should be placed about 100 feet from the<br />
vehicle in the direction of approaching traffic in the center of the<br />
traffic lane or shoulder where the vehicle is stopped, and another<br />
should be placed beside the one about 100 feet from the vehicle, but in<br />
the direction facing away from approaching traffic. If the vehicle is<br />
stopped within 500 feet of a curve, hill, or anything else that might<br />
obstruct a driver&#8217;s view, a warning device should also be placed in the<br />
direction of the obstruction about 100-500 feet from the vehicle. In the<br />
 event that the vehicle is stopped on the travel portion of the shoulder<br />
 of a divided or one way highway, one warning device should be placed at<br />
 a distance of 200 feet and another at a distance of 100 feet in the<br />
direction toward approaching traffic in the center of the lane or<br />
shoulder occupied by the vehicle. An additional warning device should be<br />
 placed within 10 feet of the rear of the vehicle on the traffic side.</p>
<p>49 CFR §392.33: OBSCURED LAMPS OR REFLECTORS</p>
<p>No lamps or reflectors should be covered by any part of the load, and<br />
 all should be clean.</p>
<p>49 CFR §392.50: FUELING PRECAUTIONS</p>
<p>When fueling, drivers must turn off the engine and must not smoke.<br />
They are forbidden from carrying extra fuel in gas cans. Buses can&#8217;t put<br />
 fuel in their vehicle in a closed building or with passengers aboard.</p>
<p>49 CFR §392.60-§392.71: PROHIITED PRACTICES</p>
<p>Commercial motor vehicle drivers are restricted from using radar<br />
detectors or open flames for any reason while in motion. Drivers cannot<br />
drive if they&#8217;ve been affected by carbon monoxide poisoning, and they<br />
cannot transport anyone apart from fellow employees, accident victims,<br />
or livestock attendants without the written permission of their<br />
employer. Drivers also cannot allow anyone else to ride in their trailer<br />
 unless there is an accessible exit from the inside.</p>
<p>
<a linkindex="34" target="_blank" href="http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/49cfr392_04.html">Click<br />
 here</a>&nbsp;to read the text of 49 CFR 392 in its entirety.</p>
<p></p>
<h2><a id="393" name="393"></a>49 CFR 393: Parts and Accessories<br />
Necessary for Safe Operation</h2>
<p>The primary concern of this section of the federal regulations is to<br />
ensure that no employer or employee of a commercial motor vehicle<br />
company drives a vehicle or causes or permits one to be driven unless<br />
the motor vehicle is in accordance with the with the requirements and<br />
specifications of this part. According to 49 CFR 393.3, additional<br />
equipment and accessories may be used as long as they don&#8217;t decrease the<br />
 safety and operation of the vehicles on which they are used.</p>
<p>49 CFR §393.11: LIGHTING DEVICES AND REFLECTORS</p>
<p>To view a table demonstrating some examples of required lighting&#8230;</p>
<p>49 CFR §393.40: BRAKES</p>
<p>Trucks, buses, tractor-trailers, and combination vehicles must have a<br />
 service break system that applies and releases the brakes when the<br />
brake pedal is used during normal driving; a parking brake system that<br />
applies and releases the parking brakes when the parking brake control<br />
is used, and an emergency brake system that uses parts of the service<br />
and parking brake systems to stop the vehicle if there is a brake system<br />
 failure. Refer to 49 CFR 393.41-393.52 for parts and specific<br />
application of brake systems.</p>
<p>49 CFR §393.52: BRAKE PERFORMANCE</p>
<p>Vehicle brake performance table. Refer to 49 CFR 393.52 for testing<br />
criteria.</p>
<p>49 CFR §393.75: TIRES</p>
<p>Any commercial motor vehicle wearing a tire that has exposed material<br />
 through the tread or sidewall, has tread or sidewall separation, is<br />
flat or has an audible leak, or has less than 2/32 tread depth (except<br />
for front tires which must have 4/32 tread depth) must not be driven.<br />
Buses must not be driven if their front tires have been regrooved,<br />
recapped, or retreaded.</p>
<p>49 CFR §393.95: EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT</p>
<p>All buses, trucks, tractor-trailers, and combination vehicles must<br />
carry a fire extinguisher, at least one spare fuse for each kind unless<br />
they are the reset type, and either three liquid-burning emergency<br />
flares, three emergency reflectors, or three emergency triangles.<br />
However, any commercial motor vehicle used for the transportation of<br />
flammable liquids, compressed gas, or Class A or B explosives isn&#8217;t<br />
allowed to carry flame producing devices even if the trailer is empty.</p>
<p>49 CFR §393.100: PROTECTION AGAINST SHIFTING OR FALLING CARGO</p>
<p>When transporting cargo, all trucks, tractors, tractor-trailers,<br />
combination vehicles, full trailers and pole trailers must be loaded and<br />
 equipped to prevent it from shifting or falling.</p>
<p>49 CFR §393.102: SECUREMENT SYSTEMS</p>
<p>This part of the federal regulations requires various securement<br />
systems to meet particular standards of strength. For example, tiedown<br />
assemblies must have the total static breaking strength of the tiedown<br />
assemblies used to secure any article against movement in any direction<br />
and must be at least ½ times the weight of the article. For load binders<br />
 and hardware, the strength and hardware must be equal to or greater<br />
than the minimum specified for the tiedown assembly. A hook, bolt, weld,<br />
 or other tiedown assembly of the vehicle and the mounting place and the<br />
 means of mounting the connector must be at least as strong as the<br />
tiedown assembly when that connector is loaded in any direction where<br />
the tiedown assembly may load it. The anchorages of winches or other<br />
fasteners mounted to a vehicle must have a combined tensile strength<br />
equal to or greater than the strength of the tiedown assembly. It is<br />
imperative that all of these devices are designed, constructed and<br />
maintained so that the driver is able to tighten them in transit.</p>
<p>49 CFR §393.104: BLOCKING AND BRACING</p>
<p>All cargo must be protected from both lateral and longitudinal<br />
movement. It must either be securely blocked or braced against the<br />
sides, sideboards, or stakes of the vehicle if it is not already secured<br />
 by devices that meet the requirements in 49 CFR §393.100 to protect it<br />
from lateral movement; for protection against longitudinal movement,<br />
cargo must be secured so that when the vehicle decelerates at the rate<br />
of 20 feet per second the cargo will remain on the vehicle and will not<br />
penetrate the vehicle&#8217;s front-end structure.</p>
<p>49 CFR §393.106: FRONT-END STRUCTURE</p>
<p>With the exception of a few vehicles manufactured before the January<br />
of 1974, all commercial motor vehicles carrying cargo must have a<br />
headboard to prevent load shifting, penetration, or the crushing of the<br />
driver&#8217;s compartment.</p>
<p>49 CFR §393.201: FRAMES</p>
<p>The frames on buses, trucks, and tractor-trailers cannot be cracked,<br />
loose, sagging, broken, or have loose, broken, or missing bolts or<br />
brackets securing the cab or body of the vehicle to the frame. They<br />
cannot have frame rail flanges between the axles that are bent, cut or<br />
notched, or holes drilled in the top or bottom rail flanges (except as<br />
specified by the manufacturer.)</p>
<p>49 CFR §393.203</p>
<p>The doors on all commercial motor vehicles must not be missing,<br />
broken, or sag to a degree that they cannot be opened or closed<br />
properly. Bolts and brackets securing the cab shouldn&#8217;t be loose, broken<br />
 or missing, and the hood and seats should all be secured. The front<br />
bumper should not be loose or protruding.</p>
<p>49 CFR §393.205: WHEELS</p>
<p>The wheels on all commercial motor vehicles including the axles, leaf<br />
 springs, coil springs and torsion bars must not be cracked, broken,<br />
loose, or out of position. The air suspension must be level with minimal<br />
 leakage.</p>
<p>49 CFR §393.209: STEERING WHEEL SYSTEMS</p>
<p>The steering on all commercial motor vehicles must be secured and<br />
without cracked or missing spokes, and the steering column itself must<br />
be securely fastened. The steering gear box shouldn&#8217;t have any cracks or<br />
 loose or missing mounting bolts. The pitman arm on the steering gear<br />
output must not be loose, and the steering wheel should turn freely<br />
through the limit of travel in both directions. The power steering must<br />
be in operational condition without loose or broken parts-belts<br />
shouldn&#8217;t be frayed, cracks, or slipping and the system should have<br />
enough fluid and shouldn&#8217;t leak.</p>
</p>
<h2><a id="395" name="395"></a>49 CFR 395: Hours of Service of Drivers</h2>
<p>The regulations in this part apply to all drivers of commercial motor<br />
 vehicles and motor carriers. However, there are a few notable<br />
exceptions stated under 49 CFR 395.1 including drivers operating<br />
vehicles that carry more than 15 people, weigh more than 10,000 pounds,<br />
or transport an amount of hazardous material that requires placards.</p>
<p>From the time a driver begins to work extending until the driver is<br />
relieved from all responsibility for being involved with the work is<br />
known as &#8220;on-duty&#8221; time. On-duty time includes:</p>
<ul>
<li>all time spent at a loading or unloading facility, terminal, or on<br />
any public or private property waiting to be dispatched,</li>
<li>all time involving the inspection process,</li>
<li>driving time,</li>
<li>all other non-driving time (except time spent resting in the<br />
sleeper) spent in a commercial vehicle,</li>
<li>all time repairing the vehicle or obtaining assistance to repair the<br />
 vehicle,</li>
<li>miscellaneous time spent such as travel time for taking a drug and<br />
alcohol test,</li>
<li>time performing any work in the service or employment of a common or<br />
 private motor carrier, and</li>
<li>all time spent performing any compensated work for any non-motor<br />
carrier business.</li>
</ul>
<p>49 CFR §395.1: ADVERSE DRIVING CONDITIONS</p>
<p>If a driver on a run is confronted by hazardous weather conditions<br />
such as rain, snow, fog, or any one of other unusual road and traffic<br />
conditions the driver can drive up to 2 hours longer than the<br />
regulations allow only if he normally could have completed the run in no<br />
 longer than 10 hours of driving, and provided that dispatch was unaware<br />
 of the adverse driving conditions at the time of dispatch. However,<br />
drivers are prohibited from driving more than 12 hours after 8<br />
consecutive hours off, or if the driver has been on duty for 15 hours<br />
following 8 consecutive hours off. If emergency condition occurs, a<br />
driver is allowed to finish his run without being in violation of this<br />
regulation if the run could have been completed in a reasonable amount<br />
of time sans the emergency condition.</p>
<p>100 air-mile radius drivers are not required to fill out a log if<br />
they drive within a 100 air-mile radius of the place where they report<br />
to work, return to the place they reported for work within 12<br />
consecutive hours, have had 8 consecutive hours off duty in between each<br />
 12 hours on duty, if they don&#8217;t drive more than 10 hours following 8<br />
hours off duty, and if their employer keeps time records for 6 months<br />
showing the time the driver reports for duty and the time he is<br />
released, the total of hours on duty from day to day, and the total time<br />
 on duty for the past 7 days if the driver is used for the first time or<br />
 intermittently. There are a few special provisions under these rules<br />
for the deliveries of driver-salespeople, oil field operations and<br />
retail stores.</p>
<p>Drivers may use their sleeper berths to accumulate the required 8<br />
consecutive hours off-duty time, and may use two separate time periods<br />
that total 8 hours. Neither period may be less than 2 hours.</p>
<p>Under §395.1 there are special duty status provisions for drivers<br />
from Alaska and Hawaii, drivers of agricultural operations, ground water<br />
 well drilling operations, drivers who transport constructions materials<br />
 and equipment, and utility service vehicles.</p>
<p>49 CFR §395.3: MAXIMUM DRIVING TIME</p>
<p>A driver is forbidden to drive more than 10 hours following 8<br />
straight hours off duty or for any period after having been on duty 15<br />
hours following 8 consecutive hours off duty. A motor carrier cannot<br />
require or even permit a driver, regardless of the number of motor<br />
carriers using the driver&#8217;s services, to drive for any period after<br />
having been on duty 60 hours in any 7 consecutive days if the employing<br />
motor carrier doesn&#8217;t operate during the week. A driver is also<br />
prohibited from driving if he has been on duty 70 hours in any period of<br />
 8 consecutive days if the employing motor carrier operates motor<br />
vehicles every day of the week.</p>
<p>49 CFR §395.8: DRIVER&#8217;S RECORD OF DUTY STATUS</p>
<p>This segment of the federal regulations states that a driver must<br />
either submit or forward by mail the original driver&#8217;s record of duty<br />
status to the regular employing motor carrier within 13 days following<br />
the completion of the form, and must retain a copy of each record of<br />
duty status for the previous 7 consecutive days and keep them available<br />
in his possession for inspection while on duty.</p>
<p>49 CFR §395.8: RETENTION OF DRIVER&#8217;S RECORD OF DUTY STATUS</p>
<p>Each motor carrier is required to maintain their records of duty<br />
status and all supporting documents for 6 months.</p>
<p>View an example of how a driver would log a journey.</p>
<p>49 CFR §395.13: DRIVERS DECLARED OUT OF SERVICE</p>
<p>A driver will be considered &#8220;out of service&#8221; if he has neglected to<br />
keep up his duty status. An &#8220;out of service&#8221; driver is prohibited from<br />
operating a commercial motor vehicle until he has had 8 consecutive<br />
hours off duty. A copy documenting this must be sent to the employer<br />
within 15 days.</p>
<p>49 CFR 395.15: AUTOMATIC ON-BOARD RECORDING DEVICES</p>
<p>A driver must have records of duty status for the previous seven days<br />
 at all times. This part of the federal regulations indicates that it is<br />
 permissible for drivers of commercial motor vehicles to use on-board<br />
recording devices in place of a log book, but the information must be<br />
retrievable and instructions on the recording system must be kept inside<br />
 of the vehicle. In the event that the recording device isn&#8217;t working<br />
for some reason the record of duty status for the current day and any of<br />
 the past 7 days that the driver is missing records for must be<br />
handwritten until the recording device is once again in working order.</p>
<h2><a id="396" name="396"></a>49 CFR 396: Inspection, Repair, and<br />
Maintenance</h2>
<p>The driver of a commercial motor vehicle that carries more than 15<br />
people, weighs over 10,000 pounds, or transports enough hazardous<br />
materials to require a placard, as well as all motor carriers, their<br />
officers, agents, representatives, and employees directly concerned with<br />
 the inspection or maintenance of the motor vehicles are required to<br />
follow this part of the federal regulations.</p>
<p>49 CFR §396.7: UNSAFE OPERATIONS FORBIDDEN</p>
<p>If a motor vehicle is in poor condition and likely to breakdown or<br />
cause an accident, a driver is forbidden to operate it.</p>
<p>49 CFR §396.9: INSPECTIONS OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN OPERATION</p>
<p>If a vehicle has been placed out of service a driver must not drive<br />
it until all of the needed repairs are completed.</p>
<p>49 CFR §396.11: DRIVER VEHICLE INSPECTIONS REPORT</p>
<p>All drivers of commercial motor vehicles must inspect their vehicle<br />
at the beginning and end of each day, and report any defects. The next<br />
driver of the vehicle is required to review the prior driver&#8217;s post-trip<br />
 inspection report, and if the report shows anything likely to affect<br />
the safety of the vehicle, the driver must sign the report indicating<br />
that the employer certified the problems were fixed. If the employer has<br />
 not certified this, the driver must not sign the report. At the end of<br />
each day of work when drivers complete and sign a written vehicle<br />
inspection report on each vehicle they operated on that particular day<br />
they must be sure to document their inspection of all brakes, the<br />
steering mechanism, all lighting devices and reflectors, tires, the<br />
horn, the windshield wipers, rear vision mirrors, coupling devices,<br />
wheels and rims, and all emergency equipment.</p>
<p>49 CFR §396.13: DRIVER INSPECTION</p>
<p>When the driver inspects his motor vehicle he must carefully review<br />
the last driver&#8217;s vehicle inspection report. If any defects on the<br />
vehicle were observed, the driver must sign the report only if the<br />
problems were corrected. A driver must always be completely confident<br />
that the motor vehicle he has inspected is in safe operating condition.</p>
</p>
<h2><a id="397" name="397"></a>49 CFR 397: Transportation of Hazardous<br />
Materials; Driving and Parking Rules</h2>
<p>This part of the federal regulations applies to all drivers of<br />
commercial motor vehicles transporting hazardous materials that must be<br />
marked or placarded in accordance with §177.823 of this title, to all<br />
motor carriers who are involved with the transportation of hazardous<br />
materials, and to each employee of the motor carrier who performs<br />
supervisory duties related to the transportation of hazardous materials.<br />
 All concerned must know and obey these regulations. If the hazardous<br />
materials must be marked or placarded, the driver of these materials<br />
must follow the regulations found in parts 390-397.</p>
<p>49 CFR §397.5: ATTENDANCE AND SURVEILLANCE OF MOTOR VEHICLES</p>
<p>If the driver of a commercial motor vehicle is hauling explosives he<br />
cannot leave his vehicle unattended unless it is parked on either<br />
company property, the shipper or receiver&#8217;s property, a safe haven*, or,<br />
 if the truck is loaded with less than 50 pounds of explosives, it can<br />
remain on a survey or construction site. A driver must be certain that<br />
the recipient of the explosives knows what they are and what to do in<br />
the event of an emergency. If the truck is left unattended, it must<br />
always remain in clear view of the driver. A vehicle that carries<br />
hazardous materials apart from Class A or B explosives and is located on<br />
 a public street or highway must always be attended by the driver unless<br />
 the driver is forced to leave the vehicle in order to perform duties<br />
necessary to resume driving.</p>
<p>*a safe haven is anywhere approved by local, state, or U.S.<br />
Government officials where commercial motor vehicles can be parked and<br />
left unattended.</p>
<p>49 CFR §397.7: PARKING</p>
<p>Drivers carrying explosives cannot park on or within 5 feet of any<br />
roadway, on private property without permission, within 300 feet of a<br />
bridge, tunnel, house, or any place where people congregate unless it is<br />
 impossible to park the vehicle elsewhere. If the driver is carrying any<br />
 kind of hazardous material he must stop at least 5 feet from the<br />
traveled part of the highway except for short periods when the vehicle<br />
must be parked and it is impossible to park anywhere else.</p>
<p>49 CFR §397.11: FIRES</p>
<p>When transporting hazardous materials, a driver must not park within<br />
300 feet of a fire or drive anywhere near an open fire unless<br />
precautions are taken to ensure a safe passage.</p>
<p>49 CFR §397.13: SMOKING</p>
<p>No one is allowed to smoke within 25 feet of a motor vehicle<br />
containing explosives, oxidizing or flammable materials, or an empty<br />
trailer that has transported placarded flammable liquids in the past.</p>
<p>49 CFR §397.15: FUELING</p>
<p>The engine of a commercial motor vehicle must be turned off and<br />
someone must always be in attendance when the vehicle is being refueled.</p>
<p>49 CFR §397.17: TIRES</p>
<p>All tires must be inspected at the beginning of a trip, whenever the<br />
vehicle is parked, and either every two hours or 100 miles, whichever<br />
comes first. Overheated tires must be removed and taken away from the<br />
vehicle to cool, and the driver must not drive the vehicle again until<br />
the cause of the overheating is discovered and corrected.</p>
<p>49 CFR §397.19: INSTRUCTIONS AND DOCUMENTS</p>
<p>Any driver carrying Class A or Class B explosives needs to know what<br />
type of explosives he is transporting, and also what emergency steps<br />
would need to be taken if an emergency such as a fire, accident or leak<br />
were to occur. The driver is required to carry a copy of the rules in<br />
part 397 of the federal regulations along with a document instructing<br />
him on what to do in the event of an accident or delay.</p>
<p>49 CFR §397.67: ROUTING OF NON-RADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS</p>
<p>A driver must plan all routes carefully and avoid heavily populated<br />
areas like places where crowds gather, tunnels, or alleys when<br />
transporting non-radioactive hazardous materials. A driver transporting<br />
Class 1, Division 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 explosives must have a written route<br />
 plan before leaving the terminal, but if the trip doesn&#8217;t begin at the<br />
terminal the driver can produce a handwritten route plan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/federal-trucking-regulations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Yorker killed in Truck Accident on I-95</title>
		<link>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/new-yorker-killed-in-truck-accident-on-i-95/</link>
		<comments>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/new-yorker-killed-in-truck-accident-on-i-95/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:06:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Car Accidents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Truck Accidents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/?p=123</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A New Yorker from Queens was involved in a car crash with a tractor trailer or 18 wheeler on Tuesday March 2nd, 2010 on I-95 near Stamford, Connecticut. The 29 year old individual, Xiao Yuan Huang, was killed when his car was rear ended by the tractor trailer. </p>
<p>The force of the impact sent the Toyota mini van flying into the guardrail of the northbound lane of the I-95 highway. Mr. Huang had to be extracted from the vehicle and was rushed to a local hospital where attempts to save his life proved futile. The driver of the tractor trailer [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A New Yorker from Queens was involved in a car crash with a tractor trailer or 18 wheeler on Tuesday March 2nd, 2010 on I-95 near Stamford, Connecticut. The 29 year old individual, Xiao Yuan Huang, was killed when his car was rear ended by the tractor trailer. </p>
<p>The force of the impact sent the Toyota mini van flying into the guardrail of the northbound lane of the I-95 highway. Mr. Huang had to be extracted from the vehicle and was rushed to a local hospital where attempts to save his life proved futile. The driver of the tractor trailer claimed he attempted to avoid the minivan but was unable to do so.  Police are still investigating and specifics and details are still coming in. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/new-yorker-killed-in-truck-accident-on-i-95/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Truck Accident Case settled in Federal Court by Frekhtman &#038; Associates, Attorneys at Law</title>
		<link>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/truck-accident-case-settled-in-federal-court-by-frekhtman-associates-attorneys-at-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/truck-accident-case-settled-in-federal-court-by-frekhtman-associates-attorneys-at-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:37:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Accident Injuries]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Accidents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Truck Accidents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/?p=106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The plaintiff was a warehouse workers who was assisting a large truck hooked to a tractor trailer that was backing up into a loading dock. The tractor trailer reversed into the loading dock improperly at a diagnol. The plaintiff banged on the side of the truck and yelled out to the driver to stop. The driver pushed the gas and moved his vehicle forward. This caused the rear tractor trailer door which was open at the time to catch on the side gate of the warehouse facility. The impact ripped the tractor trailer door off its hinges and caused it [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The plaintiff was a warehouse workers who was assisting a large truck hooked to a tractor trailer that was backing up into a loading dock. The tractor trailer reversed into the loading dock improperly at a diagnol. The plaintiff banged on the side of the truck and yelled out to the driver to stop. The driver pushed the gas and moved his vehicle forward. This caused the rear tractor trailer door which was open at the time to catch on the side gate of the warehouse facility. The impact ripped the tractor trailer door off its hinges and caused it to fall striking the plaintiff who was standing behind the tractor trailer.  The case was brought in Federal Court for serious personal injuries and pain and suffering to the worker.  At a court ordered mediation before the Magistrate judge, the case was settled for a total of $650,000.00.  Frekhtman &amp; Associates is a New York personal injury lawfirm that specializes in truck accident cases.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/truck-accident-case-settled-in-federal-court-by-frekhtman-associates-attorneys-at-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New York Automobile Accident Attorney Explains OBEL Coverage</title>
		<link>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/new-york-automobile-accident-obel-coverage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/new-york-automobile-accident-obel-coverage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:19:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Accident Injuries]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Auto Accidents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[General News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Truck Accidents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/?p=92</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>New York Accident Attorney advises New York car insurance holders to consider purchasing OBEL i.e. Optional Basic Economic Loss coverage. Along with basic insurance coverage, OBEL coverage provides protection to automobile accident victims with an additional $25,000 which can be used to cover medical expenditures and lost wages.</p>
<p>There are various types of insurance covers which provide compensation for medical bills/or lost earnings in case of an <a title="Auto Accident New York" href="http://www.866attylaw.com/auto_accident">auto accident</a>.  OBEL coverage is an optional coverage and is not mandatory. If you obtain this coverage then it will provide additional benefit of $25,000 which will supplement [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New York Accident Attorney advises New York car insurance holders to consider purchasing OBEL i.e. Optional Basic Economic Loss coverage. Along with basic insurance coverage, OBEL coverage provides protection to automobile accident victims with an additional $25,000 which can be used to cover medical expenditures and lost wages.</p>
<p>There are various types of insurance covers which provide compensation for medical bills/or lost earnings in case of an <a title="Auto Accident New York" href="http://www.866attylaw.com/auto_accident">auto accident</a>.  OBEL coverage is an optional coverage and is not mandatory. If you obtain this coverage then it will provide additional benefit of $25,000 which will supplement your motorist insurance coverage.</p>
<p>It is mandatory for every single driver of an auto vehicle in New York to possess Personal Injury Protection or No-Fault insurance. The No Fault insurance pays for medical bills up to $50,000 and this optional coverage provides an additional cover of $25,000. In case your first 50k are used up or exhausted, then OBEL coverage provides benefits to the policy holder as well as to the pedestrians, your family members, and other occupants of the car if they receive injuries in an auto accident.</p>
<p>OBEL gives you a complete control over the additional $25,000 and the manner in which you would you like to avail this additional benefit.  Under basic, mandatory No-Fault coverage the first medical provider who billed the insurance company is the first to be paid.</p>
<p>There are various options available to you under OBEL Coverage. It provides you right to decide the allocation of funds. You can use OBEL Coverage to cover following:-</p>
<p>1. Basic Economic Loss which includes medical expenses, loss of earnings, and other necessary expenses;</p>
<p>2. Lost Wages</p>
<p>3. Psychiatric, physical, or occupational therapy and rehabilitation; or</p>
<p>4. Combined benefits of option two and three.</p>
<p>However, it is important to select the right option. You are not allowed to change or switch to a different option once you have made a selection.</p>
<p>If you have received serious injuries in an accident, then OBEL can help you.  If you or someone close to you has been involved in serious accidents such as <a title="Truck Accident Attorney" href="http://www.866attylaw.com/truck_accident">truck accidents</a> or tractor trailer accidents, then No-Fault coverage will exhaust quickly. This will lead to large, unpaid hospital bills. Therefore purchasing OBEL coverage will give you additional benefits which will cover expenditures arising out of serious automobile accidents and injuries.</p>
<p>If you are injured in an automobile accident due to negligence of some individual then you must get in touch with an <a title="Accident Lawyer" href="http://www.866attylaw.com" target="_blank">Accident Attorney</a> who will help you receive justice and compensation for your injuries.</p>
<p>Visit New York Accident Lawyer : <a title="New York Accident Lawyer" href="http://www.866attylaw.com" target="_self">http://www.866attylaw.com</a> at following address:-</p>
<p>60 Bay 26th Street,<br />
Brooklyn, New York - 11214<br />
Phone : (718) 331-7700</p>
<p>The Woolworth Building, 233 Broadway,<br />
New York, New York - 10007<br />
Phone : (212) 766-5656</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/new-york-automobile-accident-obel-coverage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bronx, New York tow truck accident victim identified</title>
		<link>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/bronx-new-york-tow-truck-accident/</link>
		<comments>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/bronx-new-york-tow-truck-accident/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:07:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Accident Injuries]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Auto Accidents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bronx]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Pedestrian Accidents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Truck Accidents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[injury]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[justice]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[usa]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/?p=91</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A 56-year-old man was struck and killed by a tow truck on March 01. He was trying to cross a busy Bronx street when he was mowed down.</p>
<p>Police has identified victim as Jose Cruz who was trying to cross Broadway at W. 251st St. in Riverdale. The victim died before paramedics could take him to New York-Presbyterian Medical Center Columbia, officials said.</p>
<p>Investigators believe Cruz was not in the crosswalk when he was mowed down by a Riverdale Towing and Collision truck. The driver of the tow truck has not been charged and investigators do not believe he was speeding at [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A 56-year-old man was struck and killed by a tow truck on March 01. He was trying to cross a busy Bronx street when he was mowed down.</p>
<p>Police has identified victim as Jose Cruz who was trying to cross Broadway at W. 251st St. in Riverdale. The victim died before paramedics could take him to New York-Presbyterian Medical Center Columbia, officials said.</p>
<p>Investigators believe Cruz was not in the crosswalk when he was mowed down by a Riverdale Towing and Collision truck. The driver of the tow truck has not been charged and investigators do not believe he was speeding at the time of the fatal accident.</p>
<p>Source : <a href="http://www.866attylaw.com/truck_accident"><strong>New York (NY) Truck Accident Attorney - 866-ATTY-LAW</strong></a> representing victims of truck accident, auto accident within New York City (NYC) including Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Long Island.</p>
<p>Call us at 1-866-ATTY-LAW for a free legal consultation</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/bronx-new-york-tow-truck-accident/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Auto Accident Injury Facts by New York City Accident Lawyer</title>
		<link>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/auto-accident-injury-facts-by-new-york-city-accident-lawyer/</link>
		<comments>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/auto-accident-injury-facts-by-new-york-city-accident-lawyer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:07:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Accident Injuries]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Accidents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Auto Accidents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bus Accidents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Car Accidents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Truck Accidents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/?p=83</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Several important facts related to <a href="http://www.866attylaw.com/auto_accident">Auto Accident </a>injury victims were published in a report by the Journal Archives of Surgery on March 17th. More than 63% of accident victims confirmed that they experience substantial pain even after a year of receiving injuries in an auto accident.  This report was published after perceiving physical health status of 3,000 patients (aged 18-84). These patients had suffered serious injuries in various accidents like slip and fall injury cases and various other auto accidents involving <a href="http://www.866attylaw.com/car_accident">car accidents</a>, <a href="http://www.866attylaw.com/bus_accident">bus accidents</a>, and <a href="http://www.866attylaw.com/motorcycle_accident">motorcycle accidents</a>.</p>
<p>Most of the patients receive injuries in abdomen [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Several important facts related to <a href="http://www.866attylaw.com/auto_accident">Auto Accident </a>injury victims were published in a report by the Journal Archives of Surgery on March 17th. More than 63% of accident victims confirmed that they experience substantial pain even after a year of receiving injuries in an auto accident.  This report was published after perceiving physical health status of 3,000 patients (aged 18-84). These patients had suffered serious injuries in various accidents like slip and fall injury cases and various other auto accidents involving <a href="http://www.866attylaw.com/car_accident">car accidents</a>, <a href="http://www.866attylaw.com/bus_accident">bus accidents</a>, and <a href="http://www.866attylaw.com/motorcycle_accident">motorcycle accidents</a>.</p>
<p>Most of the patients receive injuries in abdomen or chest which results in a chest or abdominal trauma. Some other patients suffer from broken limbs or <a href="http://www.866attylaw.com/fracture_injury">fractures</a> in various different types of accidents. Several of these patients report substantial pain in different parts of their body including limbs and joints (44%), Spine/Back (26%), <a href="http://www.866attylaw.com/brain_injury">Head/Brain injuries</a> (12%) and the neck injuries (7%). However, back pain is one of the major causes of disabilities among Americans below 45 years.</p>
<p>A Baltimore based advocacy group known as “American Pain Foundation” has reported that financial expenses of chronic pain is around $100 Billion/Year in the US alone. This includes various health care expenses, loss of productivity and income at the workplace. </p>
<p>If you get injured in an accident then you must file a compensation for your injuries including both physical and mental trauma. Most of the accident cases are reported due to negligence of some individual, state or <a href="http://www.866attylaw.com/municipal_attorney">municipal authorities</a>. It is important to file a personal injury claim within a particular time period (depending upon your State/Region). Your <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mSIXMcUJiY">personal injury claim</a> must include all major facts related to the accident and you must also present the medical report which will help to ascertain the exact amount of injuries you might have suffered.</p>
<p><strong>Update by : <a href="http://www.866attylaw.com">New York City Injury Attorney - Frekhtman &#038; Associates</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/auto-accident-injury-facts-by-new-york-city-accident-lawyer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bronx man sentenced for Drunk Driving Death of 3-year-old</title>
		<link>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/bronx-man-sentenced-drunk-driving-death/</link>
		<comments>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/bronx-man-sentenced-drunk-driving-death/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:32:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Accident Injuries]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Accidents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Auto Accidents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bronx]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Pedestrian Accidents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Truck Accidents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/?p=31</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A Bronx, New York man was sentenced to 5-15 years in prison. He was sentenced on Monday for drunken driving accident which killed a three-year old boy.</p>
<p>The accused Freddy Rodriguez, 58, was drunk and driving a truck through a red light in Mount Eden, located at Bronx, New York. He hit three people including a three-year old Saquann Williams who was crushed to death. His mother and another pedestrian were seriously injured in the accident. The third pedestrian, Giselle Buie, suffered severe brain injuries. The truck that Rodriguez was driving also slammed into several occupied vehicles before coming to a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A Bronx, New York man was sentenced to 5-15 years in prison. He was sentenced on Monday for drunken driving accident which killed a three-year old boy.</p>
<p>The accused Freddy Rodriguez, 58, was drunk and driving a truck through a red light in Mount Eden, located at Bronx, New York. He hit three people including a three-year old Saquann Williams who was crushed to death. His mother and another pedestrian were seriously injured in the accident. The third pedestrian, Giselle Buie, suffered severe brain injuries. The truck that Rodriguez was driving also slammed into several occupied vehicles before coming to a halt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.866attylaw.com/blog/bronx-man-sentenced-drunk-driving-death/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
