Articles Posted in Car Accident


Car accidents involving Uber and Lyft drivers happen more often than you would think, and there are some important details that you should know. Given the complicated organizational structures of some ride-hailing services, it may be challenging to determine what parties to name in the lawsuit.  


What is Raiser LLC?


Uber drivers are frequently misguided about what company hired them, whom they drive for, and who pays them. Due to numerous legal issues, such as class action lawsuits, Uber formed a separate company called Raiser LLC to handle its drivers. Raiser is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Uber and a key component of Uber’s corporate structure. Uber drivers are technically independent contractors for Raiser. As such, Raiser manages all of the official payments to Uber drivers. Having a subsidiary deal with all driver-related matters was designed to shield Uber from direct litigation. If you, or a loved one, were critically injured in an accident caused by an Uber driver, this organizational structure could play an essential role in your claim. When accident victims want to pursue litigation against Uber, they should always name Raiser as a party to the lawsuit.

Chief Administrative Judge Larry Marks issued Administrative Order 270/2020, which implemented considerable modifications to general civil practice in New York Supreme Court. Overall, there are nearly 30 rules that have been adopted into the Uniform Rules. Many of these new rules or variations were derived from the existing rules and procedures of the Commercial Division.

Highlights of the Recent Changes to the Uniform Rules

Some of the most noteworthy changes to the Uniform Rules include the following:


At a minimum, all drivers are expected to obey New York State’s Vehicle and Traffic Laws and exercise reasonable care to avoid any accidents. While getting a ticket can be frustrating, traffic violations can lead to severe accidents and resulting injuries. When drivers violate the law and collisions result, they can be found negligent per se. Although there is no foolproof way to avoid every accident, driving cautiously and obeying traffic regulations is the best way to keep you and others safe.

Avoiding Five Highly Prevalent Traffic Violations

Speeding: Traveling over the speed limit is the most common traffic violation. Speed limits exist to prevent accidents and save lives. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), there were nearly 9,400 victims who suffered speeding-related fatalities in a single recent year. It is important to remember that speed limits are the maximum rate you can travel by law. It is also imperative not to drive too fast for the given road conditions.

In a single recent year, over 45 million licensed drivers were at least 65 years old in the United States. While driving helps provide elderly drivers with freedom and independence, the dangers of being seriously injured or worse in a car accident dramatically increase with age.

Older Drivers Face an Increased Risk of Suffering Deadly Crashes

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 20 elderly adults suffer fatalities every day, and nearly 700 are injured in crashes. Drivers who are 75 and older have considerably higher crash fatality rates than middle-aged drivers. This can be primarily attributed to the heightened vulnerability of suffering serious injuries. As we reach advanced ages, various health conditions and disorders that can make driving problematic. Some health problems that might negatively impact seniors’ driving abilities include:

Every driver is required to exercise reasonable caution behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. At a bare minimum, every driver must obey New York State traffic laws, drive cautiously, and do their best to avoid causing injury to others. Although this might seem like common sense, there are many surprising examples of behaviors that disregard the reasonable standard of care. In one form or another, negligence is responsible for the majority of all car crashes.

What is Negligence?

When a driver breaches their duty of reasonable care and that breach causes injury or property damage to another, that driver can be held liable. Accident victims rely on the legal theory of negligence to show that a driver is legally responsible. Driving negligently usually entails performing a senseless act or failing to act when necessary.

You may have been stopped at a red light during your commute home from work. As you wait for the light to change, another driver rear-ends your car. Although your bumper is barely scratched and the airbags failed to deploy, your neck feels sore. Several days later, you start feeling a throbbing pain running down your entire body. Unfortunately, all too often, severe injuries result from fender benders and other minor accidents.

The Body Is Highly Susceptible to Injury

Although Insurance Companies often try to argue that low-impact collisions cannot cause serious physical injuries, the spine consists of several highly delicate sections. During even low-impact collisions, the victim’s body may be subjected to violent forces, such as rotation, acceleration, and deceleration. Whiplash is known to happen at speeds as slow as five mph and is capable of causing chronic issues, such as arthritis and headaches. An abrupt jolt from an unexpected brunt or stop can overextend the ligaments, tendons, and muscles that form the cervical vertebrae. Furthermore, herniated discs are known to cause acute pain and may require surgery.

Whether texting, listening to music or scrolling through social media posts, the number of distracted pedestrians has significantly increased in recent years. Almost anyone who travels around in busy sections of town can attest to the alarming number of people not paying attention while walking. Unfortunately, distracted pedestrians can easily place both themselves and others in considerable danger.

What are the Consequences of Distracted Pedestrians?

Since 2004, the number of severe injuries to pedestrians using their smartphones has more than doubled. Recent research reveals that over 60 percent of pedestrians are distracted by other activities while on foot. As a result, more and more people are randomly tripping over curbs, waking into oncoming traffic, and falling down steps. This can be particularly troublesome for motorists when distracted pedestrians attempt to cross streets while looking at their phones instead of oncoming vehicles. Drivers may be forced to swerve out of the way and into other cars. Crossing the street distracted is even more dangerous when motorists fail to pay attention.

While most car accidents in New York are caused by negligent driving, some are brought about by sudden, unavoidable obstacles. Thus, New York recognizes the emergency doctrine, which can operate to remove liability for drivers who encounter sudden unexpected conditions and subsequently cause collisions during their attempts to avoid a dangerous situation. The application of the emergency doctrine does not automatically mean a driver cannot be held accountable for injuries suffered in an accident, however, as demonstrated in a recent New York opinion. If you were hurt in a crash caused by another driver, you have the right to pursue damages, and you should speak to a seasoned Buffalo car accident attorney about your possible claims.

The Plaintiff’s Accident and Subsequent Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff was riding a motorcycle when the defendant, who was driving the vehicle in front of him, stopped suddenly after a dog ran into the road. The plaintiff rear-ended the defendant and suffered injuries in the collision. He then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that her negligence caused the accident and his subsequent harm. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that pursuant to the emergency doctrine, she was not negligent. The court denied the defendant’s motion, and she appealed. On appeal, the trial court ruling was affirmed.

The Emergency Doctrine

Under New York law, drivers that stop suddenly must do so with due regard to other drivers and the exercise of reasonable care. Drivers must also signal appropriately to anyone traveling behind them before stopping abruptly. The appellate court noted that while the defendant submitted evidence that supported the assertion that she was not negligent, the plaintiff raised a factual dispute by submitting an expert affidavit stating that the best practice for a driver who encounters an animal in the road is to avoid stopping. Continue reading

Fatal car accidents sadly are a common occurrence in New York, and in many cases, they are caused by dangerous conditions encountered in the roadway. While people who lose loved ones in collisions are frequently able to recover damages from the parties responsible, fatalities do not always arise out of negligence, and a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s acts proximately caused the harm alleged to recover damages. Recently, a New York court issued an opinion explaining the proof needed to establish proximate cause in a case in which the plaintiff’s decedent died after crashing into a barricade on a bridge. If you lost a loved one in an accident caused by someone else’s negligence, you could be owed damages, and it is advisable to contact a knowledgeable Buffalo car accident attorney about your rights.

The Decedent’s Harm

Allegedly, the decedent was a passenger in a vehicle that crashed into a bridge that was no longer in commission. He suffered fatal injuries in the accident, after which the plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging, in part, that the defendant negligently maintained and operated the bridge. Specifically, the plaintiff asserted that the steel box barrier the defendant used at the entrance of the bridge created a dangerous condition. A non-jury trial was held, and the court determined that the steel box barrier was not a substantial factor in bringing about the decedent’s death and found in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, but on appeal, the trial court ruling was affirmed.

Establishing Proximate Cause in Negligence Claims

The appellate court found that, contrary to the plaintiff’s assertions, a fair assessment of the evidence supported the trial court’s ruling. Further, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the ruling violated prior case law establishing that victims of accidents are not required to name specific remedies and prove that if they were implemented, it would have prevented the harm suffered. Instead, the court explained that a trial court is not precluded from weighing whether a person was likely to suffer the same harm regardless of whether the defendant acted negligently. Continue reading

Typically, a plaintiff in a personal injury case will request a jury trial. As such, issues such as liability and damages will be determined by the plaintiff’s purported peers based on the evidence submitted by each party. Jurors do not always appropriately evaluate testimony, however, and can issue a verdict that does not align with a proper reading of the evidence, resulting in an unjust outcome. Fortunately, the law allows parties to seek a reversal of a verdict on the grounds that it is contrary to the weight of the evidence, as discussed in a recent New York opinion arising out of a car accident case. If you were hurt by the careless acts of a person driving a vehicle, it is in your best interest to speak to a knowledgeable Buffalo car accident attorney regarding your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a vehicle owned by the first defendant, which was involved in a collision with a car driven by the second defendant. The plaintiff sustained injuries in the crash and filed a lawsuit seeking damages from both defendants under a theory of negligence. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury ultimately found the first defendant completely liable for the accident, assigning none of the liability to the second defendant. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. After reviewing the case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Seeking Reversal of a Verdict

Under New York Law, a court assessing whether a jury’s verdict conflicts with the weight of the evidence presented at trial must evaluate whether the evidence is so heavily in favor of one party that the jury could not have reached its verdict based on any reasonable interpretation of the evidence. The appellate court explained that credibility determinations are the purview of the jury, as they were able to observe the evidence and witnesses. Thus, the jury’s verdict is entitled to deference, and the prevailing party is permitted to presume that the jury’s view of the evidence was fair and reasonable. Continue reading

Contact Information