Central New York Injury Lawyer Blog

Thanksgiving is this Central New York injury lawyer's favorite holiday. Why? Because I love good food, and good company, but don't like the complicated and expensive business of gift giving.

Although Thanksgiving is a holiday, unfortunately, it is not a holiday from accidents. In fact, there are more accidents on Thanksgiving than on other days. Primarily, car accidents. People drink too much, then they drive. Crash. Don't do it!

Tis the season for slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall accidents, too. Black Friday means packed stores, with shoppers tripping over objects left in aisles, or slipping on liquid spills.

And I already blogged about black Friday trample accidents here:

Black Friday Shopper Trampled -- Central NY Personal Injury Attorney Explains Liability

Hey, enjoy the bird and pie, and your loved ones and friends, but don't drink and drive, and be careful in those packed stores, ok?

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

Yesterday I blogged about whether a "governmental immunity " or "sovereign immunity" defense would bar a claim by child sex abuse victims against the State University of New York ("SUNY") if something like what happened at Penn State (State university football coach sexually abuses children on campus) happened in New York at SUNY Geneseo, or SUNY Albany, or SUNY Cortland, etc. I concluded that those defenses generally would not be applicable in New York. But unfortunately, unlike in Pennsylvania, another defense would likely prevail in New York: The statute of limitations.

Pennsylvania, unlike New York, has extended the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse victims until they reach age 30. From news reports, it seems that all the Penn State child sexual abuse victims are still under 30 years old. So they can, and probably will, be able to sue Penn State for compensation, though on the very same facts, they would not be able to do so in New York

In New York, there is no specific statute of limitations for civil cases based on child sexual abuse claims. The child victim must rely instead on traditional statutes of limitations for assault (by the perpetrator) and negligence (by the employer of the perpetrator or owner of the building where it happened). In New York, the statute of limitations for assault is one year, and for negligence it is three years.

But a child victim's statute of limitations is "tolled" (doesn't start to run) until he or she is 18 years old. That means that the statute of limitations against the perpetrator of the sexual abuse generally expires on the victim's 19th birthday, and against the employer/property owner, on the victim's 21st birthday.

But there are other --- and longer --- statutes of limitations that might apply. Under CPLR 213-b(2), if the sexual abuser is convicted of a criminal offense, the victim gets 10 years to sue him starting from the date of the crime. But this statute of limitations applies only to a lawsuit against the rapist/abuser who was convicted of the crime, not a lawsuit against his employer or others who may have negligently allowed the rape/abuse to occur. Thus, in a Penn State-like situation, the sexually abused child could not use this statute of limitations to extend his time to sue the State University.

What about CPLR 215(8)? That Statute gives the child victim of sexual assault in New York an additional five-year window to sue the perpetrator from the date the criminal action against the perpetrator terminates. But can a child sex abuse victim use this statute to extend his statute of limitations for suing not only the perpetrator, but also the negligent employer or premises owner or other culpable people who are not defendants in the criminal case? The courts in New York are divided on this issue, so this is far from a sure bet.

The bottom line is that most victims of child abuse in New York would probably be barred from suing SUNY (i.e., State Universities like Penn State) unless they did so before they turned 21. This is extremely unfair, because, as any psychologist will tell you, and as experience confirms, most victims of childhood sexual assault don't come to terms with what happened to them, or consider going to the police about it or making a claim for compensation, until they are closer to thirty years old. From what I have read, the victims of child sexual abuse at Penn State are now all over 21 years old, but younger than 30. Thus, their claims would likely be barred in New York, but not in Pennsylvania.

Why doesn't New York have a more fair law, like Pennsylvania's, that protects the rights of victims of child sexual abuse? Glad you asked. In 2009, the New York State Legislature considered a law that would have liberalized the statutes of limitations for child sex abuse cases. The "Child Victims Act" would have, among other things, extended the statute of limitations for filing civil suits for child sexual abuse to 10 years after a victim turns 18 (i.e., to age 28). But a very strong Catholic Church lobby defeated the bill.

There are some "loopholes" New York plaintiffs' lawyers might try to latch onto to avoid New York's harsh statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims, such as "equitable estoppel". But those are very difficult arguments to make. For example, with an "equitable estoppel" claim, the once-child, now adult, victim must show that a defendant such as Penn State did more than merely cover up a crime; he must show that the defendant engaged in fraud, deception or misrepresentations that induced him to refrain from filing a timely action. This is almost never the case --- rather, usually the victim's own shame induced him to refrain from filing a timely action.

Maybe the Penn State drama will induce New York law makers to again attempt reforming New York's antiquated child sexual abuse law. Let's hope so.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

Like everyone else, I have been following the "Happy Valley" Penn State child sexual assault scandal with disgust, awe, shock and dismay. But unlike everyone else, I am also thinking, as I read, who I would sue, for how much, and under what legal theories.

Although I am admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania, I have never handled a case there. My practice is limited to New York personal injury cases, and particularly to cases in Central and Western New York State. So I was surprised to read that some PA lawyers saw obstacles under Pennsylvania law to a lawsuit against Penn State because of the doctrine of "sovereign immunity". Penn State would, of course, be the principle target of my lawsuit because of its deep pockets. The lawsuits brought against the rapist/sexual predator, Sandusky, or any of the individual coaches, such as Joe Paterno, would quickly deplete all their assets, leaving the plaintiffs under-compensated. There are at least eight victims, and probably a lot more will be stepping forward, which in my mind equates to many, many millions of dollars in lawsuit recovery.

In New York, a suit against a State University for something like this would not trigger a viable sovereign or governmental immunity defense. That's because New York law distinguishes between the State's traditional governmental role (such as providing police protection) and non-traditional roles the State has assumed over time, such as owning and running a university. Generally, the State can raise the governmental immunity defense only against tort lawsuits for the former, not the latter.

If what happened at Penn State happened at one of New York's SUNY colleges, the only possible governmental immunity defense in New York would, in my opinion, be against allegations the campus police should have intervened. Since police protection is a traditional governmental function, a governmental immunity defense against that cause of action might prevail. But so many other causes of action abound for holding the State college or university liable here: Negligent hiring, supervision and retention of the football coaches; civil conspiracy; premises liability (knowingly allowing a dangerous condition to exist on their premises). And the government immunity defense would not bar these causes of action at all.

The problem in New York would not be governmental or sovereign immunity. Unlike in Pennsylvania, the problem would be the statute of limitations. I'll be discussing that tomorrow, so stay tuned . . .!

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

I love the New York Times. Read it every day. That doesn't mean I always agree with it. And here's a great example.

A recent article by John Tierny explains that some playground "researchers" question the value of safety-first playgrounds. The researchers claim that, while it is "debatable" whether modern safety-minded playgrounds protect children from injuries, they hurt children by "stunting emotional development." These academics believe that taking "risks", such as the risk of falling from heights, is an important part of developing a healthy psyche. According to one of these head-in-the-clouds academics- a professor of Psychology - we should bring back the days of sky-high slides and jungle gyms, and see-saws too, because, while falls are common, "these rarely cause permanent damage", and getting rid of those risks makes playgrounds boring and deprives kids of the opportunity to grow emotionally.

No offense Professor, but this sounds like bull_ _ _ _. And I have to wonder whether your research was funded by municipal insurers. Where's your proof? The article doesn't say.

Here's the truth about modern playgrounds: Modern, shorter equipment and enclosed climbing zones have prevented countless falls. Soft rubber or woodchip landing zones, which have replaced skull-fracturing pavement, have made the fewer injuries there are much less severe. Scrapping traditional seesaws, spinning devices, and too-tall slides and jungle gyms have saved young lives. Well-reasoned federal guidelines and modern playground safety standards set by manufacturers have kept the fun in playgrounds while reducing the tragedies, heartaches and loss.

And yes, you can thank us New York personal injury playground lawyers for that. We forced these changes by making playground owners --- mostly schools and municipal governments - compensate our clients for their dangerously designed equipment. Personal injury playground lawyers all over the U.S. have raised the bar for safety, but New York personal injury lawyers have led the charge.

Personal injury lawyers save lives. Next time you are at a playground with your kids, admire the safe design, the soft surface, the enclosed climbing area and the shorter climbs. Then raise your arms to the sky and say, "thank you New York personal injury lawyers!". And, god forbid, if your child is injured, call me and we will look into whether an unsafe design feature was a factor in causing it.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

I have already blogged about how surveillance cameras have made slam dunk cases out of slam dunk losers. Here's another example. Just this week I took in a doubtful slip-and-fall case. The plaintiff slipped and fell on some liquid of unknown origin in the produce section of a local supermarket. In the pre-surveillance-camera era, this case would have been a loser. Why? Because you have to show either that the supermarket created the spill, or knew about it and did nothing to fix it, or failed to notice it when it should have noticed it. And how do you prove that when it is just as likely that an inconsiderate shopper made the mess and did not report it a minute before the slip and fall? In the pre-surveillance camera era, I would have turned this case down.

But I did not turn it down, and for one reason: surveillance cameras. I knew there was likely to be a surveillance video that would tell the story of what happened. So I wrote to the supermarket, told them I was representing the slip-and-fall victim, and demanded that they preserve the video subject to legal sanctions if they did not,

Today I received a phone call from a supermarket insurance adjuster who informed me that the video shows a customer spilling a drink 15 minutes before the slip-and-fall, and then shows a supermarket floor inspector walk right past the spill without seeing it, and then shows my client turning a corner and slipping on the spill. It is a slam dunk because the supermarket employee was clearly negligent in performing his floor inspection, which caused him to overlook the obvious spill, and my client was blameless because she could not have noticed the spill before she turned the corner.

Moral of the story for my fellow Central and Syracuse (and beyond) personal injury lawyers: Before you turn a supermarket slip and fall case down, demand to see the surveillance tape.

Three are dead and several injured, including a baby, in this evening's two-level house explosion in Salem, NY,

From my experience handling propane and gas injury cases, I can tell you this has all the hallmarks of a propane explosion: An extremely violent explosion completely demolishing the home, debris blown hundreds of feet out from the epicenter, insulation hanging from trees, shingles and other debris strewn everywhere, mattresses, too. Even cinder blocks are blown far from where walls once stood.

One of the survivors, a renter, said he had called his landlord about a propane leak earlier in the day. That probably means that he smelled the leak. If he did, he should not only have called his landlord, but he should also have gotten out of the house until the leak was fixed, and should have warned others to get out, too.

If you smell propane, get out, and get others out, without lighting anything, without turning on any switches, and without even calling from a phone. That's because any of those activities can create a tiny spark that will ignite the propane in the air, and cause an explosion. Go to a neighbor's house and call your propane supplier immediately from there. They should send someone immediately to investigate and fix the leak.

Depending on what the investigation reveals, the landlord may be held liable for not responding to this serious warning early on. The propane providers may also be liable for failure to properly warn, and for having improperly installed the propane delivery system, or for failing to properly inspect the propane delivery system for leaks on a regular basis. There are many other possible theories of liability, against various people and entities, depending on what the investigation turns up. The injured and their families should hire competent New York gas explosion injury lawyers immediately. Those lawyers should then hire competent explosion investigators and experts immediately to capture all the evidence before it disappears.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

Today's Syracuse Post Standard reported on a study published in the journal Pediatrics concluding that, in the U.S.A., a child dies in a portable pool every 5 days during the summer months. Ninety four percent of the victims are under 5.

Drowning is the second-leading cause of death among young children. (The first is car accidents). But why so many deaths in these cheap, shallow pools?

I can think of three:

First, there are so many of those portable pools. Almost anyone can afford them. They sell like hotcakes this time of year in Walmarts, malls and other stores. With so many around, it is not surprising that at least some of them would become death traps.

Second, many parents blindly purchase these pools with no awareness of the dangers, especially to small children and toddlers. They don't look dangerous at all --- they look fun, and they are, too. The parents purchasing these pools are not required to take a safety course, or watch a safety video first. (Maybe they should be?).

And third, many of the safety mechanisms prevalent with in-ground pools, such as fencing, safety covers, and pool alarms, are not available, or affordable, to the purchasers of smaller, cheaper pools.

But the real cause of most childhood drownings is lack of adult supervision. Never, ever leave a child who is not a competent swimmer unsupervised anywhere near a pool. And if you are supervising, don't get distracted in conversations, books, electronic devices or anything. Especially with very small children, you must watch with undivided attention. Drowning is usually silent, so don't expect to hear screams for help. You might just read or talk your way through your child's death-by-drowning. Drowning is fast - it only takes a minute or so with small children. That's just a couple of pages of your book, or a little tidbit of gossip from your neighbor across the fence.

Since I'm a New York personal injury lawyer, let me tell you a little about pool liability. If you own any kind of pool, even a plastic kiddy pool, and a neighbor's child makes his way to your property, falls or jumps in, and drowns, you can be held liable. Children are naturally attracted to pools and water. You have to guard the pool when you are not there to watch it. With smaller pools, just empty the water. With larger ones, cover, fence, and lock them.

And always, always supervise your neighbors' kids when they are visiting and the pool is accessible.

Don't be a fool with a pool.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

Surveillance cameras are a game-changer in personal injury litigation. I blogged about this before, but another recent example illustrates this point.

A client slips and falls in the vestibule entrance of a local movie house. It had been raining, and movie-goers had been dragging in the rain on their feet. The employees had forgotten to lay out the rectangular carpets to absorb the water as they were required to do by company policy. But the insurance adjuster handling the claim tells me it was all my client's fault because she "rushed" into the vestibule. I formally requested that any surveillance videos of the incident be preserved as evidence. After I sue the movie house (because the insurance carrier refused to pay), I demand the video. It shows my client walking at a normal pace and then sliding for about a foot before finally tumbling to the floor. That floor was like an ice-skating rink, and I have it on video to prove it.

Before the era of surveillance cameras (and they are everywhere now - you would be surprised just where), my client might have lost this case --- it was just her word against theirs. Now it is her word, and a surveillance video tape, against theirs.

One thing I have learned as a New York personal injury lawyer, and especially as a slip-and-fall accident lawyer, is that you have got to demand, in writing, that those surveillance tapes get preserved right away. Many stores and other institutions re-use surveillance video tapes, taping over earlier recordings, on a weekly basis. But if you ask them to preserve the surveillance video as evidence, and they have not already taped over it, then they must preserve it. If the don't, the Court can later dismiss their defenses and grant the injured plaintiff a judgment based on destruction of evidence.

If you are injured and you believe there may be a surveillance video tape of the accident, don't forget to tell your New York personal injury lawyer about your suspicions so he can demand that the evidence be preserved!

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

These winter days of snow-caked rooftops, there are lots of folks are up on roofs with chisels, hammers and shovels trying to dislodge ice and clear off snow. And for a good reason; all that snow and ice buildup can damage the roof, and can even cause the roof to collapse! That's pretty dangerous, but being up there on the snow-and-ice capped roof, if you don't know what you are doing, isn't so safe either. Quick advice from this Central and Syracuse New York personal injury lawyer: Don't do it yourself unless you know what you are doing. Hire a contractor or roofer instead.

But wait a minute. If you do hire someone to do it for you, and he falls off your roof and is injured or dies, can he, or his family, sue you?

Before I tell you the answer, let me give you some law. New York has a special law, called New York Labor Law 240, which provides that workers may bring a lawsuit against the "owner" of a building (among others) if the workers fall and are injured while engaged in either "cleaning" or "repair" work (among other things). Clearing snow and ice off a roof has been held to be a "cleaning" activity, and of course fixing a leak is a "repair" activity, so if someone falls from your roof while doing either of those things, you, the homeowner, would, at first glance, seem to be liable for the injuries sustained by the fallen worker.

But wait! There's an exception that saves you, the homeowner, from having to lose sleep over the possibility that Joe the Roofer might sue you for his injuries when he falls from your roof. What is it? Drum roll please . . . .

Labor Law 240 provides that the owner of a non-commercial one or two-family dwelling (i.e., a "home") is not liable for the roofer's injuries as long as the homeowner did not "direct or control" the work. In other words, you can go ahead and hire a contractor or roofer to get that snow and ice off your roof, or to fix that leaky roof, as long as you don't tell or show him how to do it. To be safe, you'd be better off not even lending him the equipment to do it. Let him "direct and control" himself. And let him get his own stuff to do it.

As you can imagine, falls from roofs can cause very serious injuries, some of which are compensable by millions of dollars. Take it from me; my law firm and I have successfully won millions for workers who have fallen from roofs. We have never sued a homeowner on behalf of a fallen worker, though. Why not? As I already told you, they are generally immune from liability (unless they micro-manage the job). We usually sue these cases out against industrial or commercial owners of property and against the general contractor of construction projects.

So don't worry, be happy! I'm not going to sue you on behalf of that roofer or contractor you hire to get rid of that ice or snow or fix your leaky roof! But if you are someone, or know someone, who fell from a roof while clearing snow or ice or while repairing a leak, especially on a commercial building, do call, or have him or her call me.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.

Posted by Michael Bersani | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Construction Accidents , Premises Liability

Gas explosions have caused some of the worst injuries I have ever seen in my career as a Central New York personal injury lawyer. They are what I call a "double whammy" - they cause terrible crush injuries (because buildings collapse on the victims) and just as terrible burn injuries (because of the explosion and fire). As a Central New York gas explosion lawyer, I have been representing 9 clients whose home exploded when a propane gas leak filled it with gas. Human cost? One dead, one paralyzed from the waist down, one whose legs are crushed beyond belief, and left 7 others with serious burn and crush injuries.

So today when I read about the huge gas main explosion in Philadelphia that killed a utility worker and left three co-workers in critical condition, I felt connected to those poor workers. They will have the same kinds of injuries my clients have. And I also feel proud of them. The workers had responded to a report of gas odor, found the leak, and were attempting to repair it. They probably knew the danger, but stepped up and did their duty.

A TV news channel caught the explosion on film.

Gas main explosions like this one are on the rise. Maybe you remember the terrible blast last September in California. Why are they on the rise? Our underground gas pipes nationwide are aging, corroding, and just plain falling apart. Yet utility companies apparently aren't in a hurry to replace them; that costs money and eats into profits. So, one might ask, why doesn't government step in and force their hand? Unfortunately, our government largely leaves it up to utility companies to inspect their own gas pipes and decide whether and when to replace them.

So where does that leave the rest of us? Simple: in harm's way. And there's not much we can do about it either. You can't go out into your street, dig it up, and inspect those pipes yourself. But if you get hurt in a gas explosion, you sure can sue.

Every single gas explosion I have ever been involved in as a New York gas explosion lawyer, or read about, could have been avoided if everyone, including the gas companies, had followed proper and safe gas explosion prevention practices. Unfortunately, more often than not, cutting corners, and cutting costs, wins out over safe practices. And that's why we need good gas explosion lawyers --- to get justice for the burned, crushed, broken dead and injured victims of preventable gas explosions.

I'm proud to do my job!

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

This Central New York personal injury lawyer blogged a few weeks ago about building owners' liability for falling icicles and ice. Those big pointy slabs of ice can kill people, and the building's owner can be held liable for negligence in failing to remove them or prevent them from forming.

Now you godda love this guy from North Syracuse, who invented and patented his own do-it-yourself icicle remover. The story, as reported in the Syracuse Post Standard, is that he came across the idea of his "deicicler" while having a hard time knocking icicles off his roof. Hit the link and take a look at it. It is basically a lightweight flat shovel, but with holes in it to encircle the icicles and pull them down.

I am hoping this will be a safe way for do-it-yourselfers to remove icicles from their homes and stores. This is not only great protection against liability, but also will prevent the ice from damning up, getting under your shingles, and ruining your roof.

You have probably heard or read about the recent tragic accident on Sugarloaf Mountain in Maine. A chairlift cable derailed sending several skiers plunging into the snow-covered slope below. Luckily, a generous snowfall had recently blanketed the Mountain, and that helped pad the landing. Still, several skiers are recovering in local hospitals. We wish them well.

What caused the derailment? We still don't know. But one thing I can tell you as a New York personal injury lawyer; the Sugarloaf folks are almost certainly liable (unless the chairlift system was defectively built or designed, in which case the manufacturer would be liable). An "accident" like this does not happen without some negligence. My very educated guess is that the Sugarloaf folks failed to properly inspect or maintain the chairlift, or they allowed it to operate in unsafe weather conditions (winds of 40 miles per hour were reported).

This accident demonstrates an important principle in New York sports injury law: While those who voluntarily participates in a sport such as skiing are deemed to have "assumed the inherent risks" of the sport, and therefore can't sue for injuries caused by those risks (see my prior blog post about this here), when the risk that caused the accident is not one of those inherent in the sport, they can sue.

For example, if you are skiing and hit a patch of ice, or a tree, or another skier skies into you, you would, in most cases, be barred from suing the Ski Resort. Those are all dangers inherent in the sport of skiing, and if you don't want to "assume" those risks, well, put those skis back in the attic!

On the other hand, you have a right to assume that the mechanical lifts that bring you to the top of the mountain are safe, well maintained, and aren't going to derail and send you hurling to the ground. A derailing ski lift is not one of the risks inherent in the sport of skiing. Rather it is a risk caused by the Ski Resort not fulfilling its duty of maintaining and operating safe machinery!

If you or a loved one has a possible New York sports injury case, you should consult with a New York sports injury lawyer to see if New York law will deem you to have "assumed the risks" of the injury or not.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

One of the advantages/disadvantages of my job as a Central New York and Syracuse personal injury lawyer is that I am acutely aware of all the dangers lurking out there. The "advantage" is that I avoid some dangers most people don't even think about. The "disadvantage" is that I worry too much! For example, when the weather is getting warmer, and I see icicles, I am careful to avoid walking under them. If I have to pass under them, I do so quickly, and I keep an eye on them.

With the weather freezing and then warming in Central New York, icicles can be dangerous. The warming weather can loosen them. They can then fall like heavy spears on your head. Icicles can weigh as much as 500 pounds. Back in 1978, a block of ice weighing several hundred pounds fell off the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Syracuse, and killed a young woman who just happened to be walking along the sidewalk.

You may be wondering about liability for falling icicles. New York falling-icicle liability law is really the same as for any New York premises liability case. An owner of a property has a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition, and to correct unsafe conditions he or she is or should be aware of. This includes posting reasonable warnings.

The first step to avoid falling ice liability is take reasonable measures to avoid icicle formation. No icicles, no liability! It's that simple. Icicles usually form because of improper ventilation or insulation in the attic, which causes some areas of the roof to warm. The warm roof melts snow, which then turns to water and runs down the roof until it reaches the edge or gutter, which is usually colder, causing the water to freeze. And, voila! An icicle is born.

But if you already have icicles, it is too late to try to prevent them from forming. In that case, if they are particularly large and heavy, and located above areas where people walk, the right thing to do (and to avoid liability) is to hire a good contractor to remove them. (Don't try this yourself if you don't have the proper equipment and experience -- it's too dangerous!). In the meantime, you should post large, visible warning signs and, if possible, tape off or block the areas around the building where icicles are at risk of falling on pedestrians.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

.
Now that the snow's finally here in Central New York, it's time for this Central and Syracuse New York slip and fall lawyer to blog about New York snow removal liability. When can a property owner be held liable for failure to remove snow and ice that causes a slip and fall injury?

Here are a few ground rules. First, in New York, if it's snowing fairly hard, a landowner cannot be held liable for failing to remove snow until "a reasonable time after" it stops snowing. This is known as the "storm in progress doctrine". It is meant to give property owners a kind of grace period while the snow is still falling. New York law deems it unreasonable to require landowners to remove every flake as it hits ground! The doctrine is not limited to blizzard conditions, but also applies in less severe, but still inclement, winter weather.

What is a reasonable period of time after the snow stops falling so that landowners must begin to remove the snow that fell? It depends, and it is generally up to the jury. But let me put it this way --- most New York slip and fall lawyers (me included) wouldn't take a Central New York winter weather slip and fall case, on commercial premises, unless the accident happened at least a half an hour after the snow stopped. And if it happened on a private home walkway, I would want to know whether the homeowner was at work when it stopped snowing. Most juries would find it pretty unreasonable to require a homeowner to come home and clean his walkway when the storm stops while he's at work.

The storm in progress doctrine is not an iron-clad rule. It is riddled with exceptions (aren't there always exceptions? That's what makes law so fun!). Here's an important one: If you can prove that the slip and fall was caused by OLD ice that was hidden under the new snow, and that the property owner had failed to salt the old ice for some time before the snow storm started, then you can hold him liable. You see, in that case the slip and fall injury was not caused by the newly falling snow that the owner had no time to remove, but rather by old ice that he should have removed long ago.

The law is almost always reasonable. But landowners often aren't. A property owner who fails to remove snow and ice within a reasonable period of time after the end of a snowfall unreasonably endangers visitors to his property. He or she should, in my view, be held liable for injuries his irresponsibility causes. Fortunately, the law agrees with me.

Reader's Digest version: Property owner, you can sing "let it snow, let it snow, let it snow" while the snow still falls, but when it stops, so must you. Get out the shovel, and get to work.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

As a Central and Syracuse New York accident lawyer, I had been expecting a story like this since last Friday. Why? Because last Friday was "black" Friday. Read on.

Today news sources report that a western New York man was injured, though thankfully not seriously, when he found himself on the bottom of a pile of bargain-crazed shoppers on Black Friday. The deal-hunters had stormed an entrance into a Buffalo Target store at its 4:00 a.m. opening

Target has promised to improve its "Black Friday crowd management plan" for next year.

And it had better. Black Friday can be dangerous. And much of the danger is created by stores not taking proper precautions. A New York store accident lawyer can hold them liable for injuries that result from this lack of care.

Although many retailers hire extra help to handle the massive onslaught of bargain-seekers, many do not do enough to manage the crowds. On Black Friday, stores need a crowd control plan, crowd control experts, and trained crowd control staff.

But paying for all that would cut into their huge black Friday profits! Boy, that sounds a lot like the closing argument I would give in a New York store-crowd accident lawsuit.

But it's no joking matter. Just two Black-Fridays ago, a Walmart employee was trampled to death in New York.

Under New York store liability law, New York Store owners have a duty to keep their premises reasonably safe. So if they are advertising "amazing deals" to draw excited masses of shoppers into their stores, they are legally required to provide reasonably safety precautions to prevent crowd-produced injuries.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169