Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf is a New York Plaintiff's personal injury law firm specializing in automobile accidents, construction accidents, medical malpractice, products liability, police misconduct and all types of New York personal injury litigation.
Published on:

By
Staten Island Advance / Landov
Drunk Driving Accident

A supervisor at a state-run psychiatric center has been indicted for the criminally negligent homicide of an autistic 27-year-old patient.

The supervisor, Erik Stanley, said he used appropriate procedures in attempting to subdue Jawara Henry, 27, who died Dec. 4 at a Staten Island psychiatric center. But authorities said medical evidence showed he used a chokehold while Henry was on his stomach, although he didn’t intend to harm him, reports the New York Daily News.

Stanley, who was also charged with endangering the welfare of an incompetent or physically disabled person in today’s indictment, turned himself in and was released on his own recognizance.

The investigation included a review of medical and forensic evidence, in addition to interviews with eyewitnesses to the incident.

Read More

Published on:

By

9735782-small.jpg
A Mobile jury awarded a $40 million wrongful death judgment to the parents of a Mobile County teenager who was killed in a 2004 car accident. The judgment was against Kia Motors and the makers of a seatbelt buckle. Tiffany Stabler was ejected from the vehicle after she struck a sign and the car overturned. Witnesses said that she was wearing her seatbelt, while Kia maintained that she was not.

Stabler was driving a 1999 Kia Sephia that her father had bought for her 16th birthday. Kia officials knew that seatbelts in the 1999 model vehicles were faulty, according to plaintiff testimony, but did not include them in a recall of 1995-1998 vehicles.

Read More: Mobile County jury slaps Kia with $40 million wrongful death verdict

Published on:

By

New York State police confirmed that a 46-year-old Vermont construction worker died of injuries caused sustained in a heavy machinery construction accident.

Michael Loyer of South Burlington was working for Trenchless Technologies of New England at a railroad site in Port Kent, New York. The accident occurred while he was installing a 3-foot-diameter pipe using an auger. The auger became bound in the pipe causing him to be thrown to the ground and pinned under the auger.

One of Loyer’s co-workers used a backhoe to lift the auger and free his body. An ambulance arrived to take Loyer to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The construction accident remains under investigation.

Published on:

By

Partners Ben Rubinowitz, Chris Sallay and Anthony Gair working together settled this personal injury case at mediation with the case on the Trial Calendar for $5,000,000.00.

The plaintiff, 47 at the time of the accident, had climbed a fire escape to the third floor of a building when the landing upon which he was standing collapsed causing him to fall approximately 30 feet to the ground. As a result he suffered an intra-articular radial fracture of the right wrist and comminuted fracture of the left wrist. He required surgery of both wrists. He also suffered facial fractures requiring surgery. He further required an exploratory laparotomy a for abdominal injuries. It was also claimed that he suffered a traumatic brain injury. The defendant alleged the plaintiff was negligent for using the fire escape to gain access to a third floor apartment and that plaintiff recovered from his injuries to the extent he was able to return to work.

The New York Personal Injury Lawyers at Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf have years of experience representing people who have suffered injury in all types of accidents in New York.

Published on:

By

Our Partner, Jeffrey Bloom, recently settled a medical malpractice case in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County for $3,375,000 for the wrongful death of a 46 year old husband and father of two young children in which the patient died on the operating table during the performance of back surgery.

This complex case involved surgical error by the vascular and orthopedic surgeons and anesthesia malpractice. It was alleged that major blood vessels were lacerated during the surgery resulting in acute blood loss, a fact confirmed by the Medical Examiner, that no timely repair was performed by the surgeons and that the anesthesiologist failed to recognize the emergency, perform resuscitation and treat the patient’s acute hemorrhage by administering adequate blood and blood replacement products.

The defendants asserted that the patient, who was unemployed and on disability, had serious cardiac conditions which significantly decreased his life expectancy.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In THOME v. BENCHMARK MAIN TRANSIT ASSOCIATES, LLC, 4th Dept. July 8, 2011, 2011 N.Y. Slip 5884, The Court denied the plaintiff construction worker’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was standing on a scissor lift and, when he repositioned the scissor lift to perform his work, one of its wheels entered a hole in the floor and the scissor lift tipped over, causing plaintiff to fall and sustain injury. In denying the motion the Court held;

“We agree, however, with the further contention of defendants that they raised a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. In opposition to the motion, defendants submitted evidence that plaintiff was aware that holes had been cut into the concrete floor of the building in which he was working and that, on the morning of his accident, plaintiff had been specifically directed not to operate the scissor lift in the area where the holes had been cut. Further, defendants submitted evidence that plaintiff drove the raised lift into that area while looking at the ceiling rather than where the lift was going. Consequently, “[u]nlike those situations in which a safety device fails for no apparent reason, thereby raising the presumption that the device did not provide proper protection within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1), here there is a question of fact [concerning] whether the injured plaintiff’s fall [resulted from] his own misuse of the safety device and whether such conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries” (Bahrman v Holtsville Fire Dist., 270 AD2d 438, 439).”

In a dissent Justice Peradotto voted to affirm the lower court’s granting of summary judgment stating;

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

By; Anthony Gair,

In personal injury cases predicated upon the negligent design of a product,(product liability cases), such as almost any type of machine which is to be used by people of varying training and skill it is imperative for the plaintiff’s attorney to understand the basics of machine design. This is crucial in New York where the plaintiff’s culpable conduct is a defense to a strict product liability action so that the percentage of fault for his injury may be, if not eliminated, reduced as much as possible. It is not enough for an attorney to simply ask a product design engineer at deposition how the product works. Such questions alone are pointless and will not result in a deposition which can be used to defeat a motion for summary judgment, or at trial, to impeach the product design engineer. As in any deposition the lawyer must ask himself what the purpose of the deposition is. Is it merely to gather information or is it to cross examine the witness so he will be pinned down at trial? In a product liability case in New York the plaintiff is allowed to serve extensive interrogatories. Hence if well drafted the plaintiff’s attorney will have most of the discovery needed for both deposition and trial. Hence it is submitted that the primary purpose of the deposition of a product design engineer is to cross examine him on the principles of design engineering. Similar to a deposition of a physician in a medical malpractice case where the plaintiff’s lawyer must know the medicine as well, if not better, then the physician the plaintiff’s lawyer must know the principles of design engineering as well as the design engineer. If one is not willing to learn this area there is no reason to undertake a complex product design defect case. The plaintiff’s lawyer must check the college and graduate school curriculum for the field of design engineering and read as many of the texts used in design engineering courses as possible.. If a lawyer is not willing to make this commitment he is better off referring the case to a specialist in product design defect cases. The following is a basic discussion of the principles of machine design.

Machine design is a sub-specialty of mechanical engineering. In designing machines, design engineers must take into consideration that a machine, will be used by people of varying intelligence, education and skill. “Human factors engineering, engineering psychology, and ergonomics are largely overlapping segments of a common area of interest: the analysis and design of the conditions affecting people operating in concert with machines”. 1
Ergonomics, or Human Factors Engineering and Design as it is commonly referred to in the United States, involves the consideration by the design engineer of human factors and characteristics when designing safety features into machines. The cardinal principal is that it is human nature to err, that is, people make mistakes. It is standard and accepted practice that the concept of human error be taken into consideration when designing a machine. A machine, must be designed to reduce, as much as is technologically feasible, without destroying the utility of the machine, foreseeable actions by the operator causing injury or death.

In designing a machine a hazard analysis must be done. From a design engineering standpoint a hazard is a condition that has the potential of causing or contributing to injury.

Danger in the context of safety design engineering theory means a higher probability of the risk of an identified hazard causing injury. Risk is the probability of being injured by an identified hazard.

When a design engineer has identified a foreseeable dangerous hazard, there is a safety design priority recognized by all design engineers with reference to preventing injury from the identified hazard which is a follows:

A. Design out the hazard if one can do so without destroying the ability of the machine to function or utility of the machine.

B. If an identified hazard cannot be designed out of the machine without destroying its ability to function or utility the next goal of the design engineer is to guard against it causing injury by incorporating guards or other safety devices.

C. The last alternative is that if one can’t design out the hazard because doing so would destroy the utility of the machine and one can’t guard against it by incorporating guards or safety devices, the last priority is to warn about it. It is the ethical responsibility of the design engineer for the machine to develop a safe functional design which eliminates or greatly reduces the potential for human error on the part of the machine operator causing injury to him self or others.

The following are sample questions that should be asked in a design defect case at the deposition of the design engineer who designed the product;
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In Losito v Manlyn Dev. Group, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 05463, Second Department, June 21, 2011, the plaintiff was required to jump through some hoops but finally prevailed on his cause of action claiming a violation of Section 240(1) of The New York Labor Law.

On January 16, 2009 The lower court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Thereafter following a jury verdict for defendants and entry of judgment on same, The Second Department, on April 19, 2011, reversed the judgment, reinstated the 240(1) cause of action and granted plaintiff’s original motion on his 240(1) cause of action. Based on the facts as set forth in the opinion it is difficult to understand why the motion was denied in the first place. The Court held as follows;

“The plaintiff, on his motion for summary judgment on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), against the defendants Manlyn Development Group, Inc., and FB of Long Island, LLC (hereinafter together the respondents), established, prima facie, that the A-frame ladder on which he was standing was defective and collapsed, causing his injuries (see Monioudis v City of New York, 82 AD3d 945; Zhu Wei Shi v Jun Lan Zhang, 76 AD3d 558, 559; Sozzi v Gramercy Realty Co. No. 2, 304 AD2d 555, 556).

Continue reading →
  1. Pages:
  3. 1
  4. ...
  5. 336
  6. 337
  7. 338
  8. 339
  9. 340
  10. 341
  11. 342
  12. ...
  13. 353
Badges
Super Lawyers Best Lawyers Martindale-Hubbell
SEE NEW JERSEY DISCLAIMER PAGE- AWARD METHODOLOGY