Justia Lawyer Rating
AV Preeminent Martindale-Hubbell Lawyer Ratings
Bar Register Preeminent Lawyers
Avvo Rating 10
The Best Lawyers in America
Best Law Firms 2020
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Super Lawyers
Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Hispanic Lawyers Association

I recently blogged about Governor Cuomo’s new beefed up penalty for texting while driving (from a 3-point violation to 5 points). But apparently the Gov ain’t done tackling texting. His latest anti-texting initiative is to designate old rest stops along the Thruway and other major highways as “Texting Zones” (see photo).

Here’s my take on the Gov’s new laws: I know the Governor might be naïve to think that his “texting zones” are going to make a lot of texters pull over, just as I know that increased penalties are not likely to put a dent in the texting while driving problem. But I submit he’s moving in the right direction.

The truth is that texting while driving is now so pervasive in New York, and probably everywhere else, too, that the Governor’s anti-texting measures are the equivalent of sticking your finger in a dike that has already burst. Believe me, I know how ubiquitous the practice is, since I sue texting drivers for the broken lives their habit leaves behind.

Texters beware! You might be held liable for a distant car crash happening right now as you sit in the comfort of your living room texting a friend. To find out how this is possible, read on!

A New Jersey appellate court recently held that texting to a driver you know is reading your texts, or is likely to do so, while driving, can make you liable, along with the driver, for any resulting accidents (Kubert v. Best, 2013 WL 4512313, N.J. Super. App. Div. Aug. 27, 2013). This is the first case in the nation expanding tort liability for car accidents to remote texters. Until now, only the texting driver could be held liable for the accident he caused while texting, not the companion texting with him from some remote location.

The case was cleverly argued by plaintiffs’ counsel. They pointed to case law that said a passenger in a motor vehicle has a duty “not to interfere with the driver’s operations”. For example, it has long been the rule that a passenger can be held liable, along with the driver, for showing him a road map to read while driving where the distraction causes an accident.

This Central New York Personal Injury lawyer handles a fair amount of car accident cases. I see a lot of bloody and broken tragedy behind the wheel. Young inexperienced teenagers are the worst. How many kids have I seen wreck their lives, and those of others, in stupid car accidents? Every time one of those kids’ parents walks in my door, I cringe – will that be my kid someday?

So letting my own 16-year old boy get a driver’s license does not come easy. My parental paranoia increased ten-fold when one of my partner’s 17-year old kid wrapped his car around a tree this year. He, lost consciousness for several hours, and ended up with a traumatic brain injury. Luckily he healed well after several months, but jeez, what a fright and worry for his poor parents.

But it’s time to cut the umbilical cord. No more helicopter parenting for me. Today he takes his mandatory four-hour driving course, which then allows us to sign him up for his driver’s test. He’ll be showing off his driver’s license by his 17th birthday (September 30).

President Obama reportedly told Syria, in sum or substance, “if you use chemical weapons on your people, we will use punish you militarily”.

Then Syria used chemical weapons on its people. But instead of inflicting military damage on Damascus, as promised, Obama hemmed, hawed, asked his allies what they thought, asked Congress what it thought, etc.

So what happens the next time the U.S. says to a dictator, “if you do x, we will do y”? What does an empty threat do to our credibility for future negotiations?

I came across an article recently in the New York Law Journal titled “Drunken Run Could Leave Cornell Liable for Fatal Fall”. It’s about a case judge Ramsey (Ithaca, Tompkins County) recently decided where a drunken, and possibly stoned, Cornell University student suddenly bolted from the friends he was walking with on campus, ran down a marked hiking trail, departed from the trail, ran through the woods, hurdled a split-rail fence, and plunged to his death into the 200-foot gorge below. (The trail is appropriately named “Fall Creek Gorge trail”.)

Cornell moved for summary judgment (to have the case dismissed) based in part on New York’s General Obligations Law §9-103, which says landowners who allow the public to use their property for recreational purposes without charge are generally immune from liability. This law was enacted years ago to encourage landowners to open their fields and woods to hikers, bikers, hunters and others.

Judge Ramsey denied the motion and allowed the case to go to trial. The Judge reasoned that General Obligations Law § 9-103 grants immunity only for recreational activities, such as hiking, and here the kid was not “hiking”. The judge relied on a definition of “hiking” in the Department of Environmental Conservation’s regulations, which says hiking is “walking through trees for pleasure or exercise”. Here the kid was not “walking for pleasure”, the judge said, but rather running wildly through the woods in the middle of the night for unknown reasons.

Judges, like most people, have a hard time admitting they’re wrong. Well, maybe even a harder time than most people. That black robe is an ego-inflater. A lowly lawyer gets elected, dons the robe and — voila! — he is suddenly addressed as “your honor”. People stand up when he walks into a room. You get the picture.

That’s why an article in the New York Law Journal — titled “Judge Admits Mistake and Slashes Damages” caught my eye. The article is about a judge who admitted he was wrong without having to be told so by an appellate court. He said his original decision – which awarded $1 million to the children of a deceased medical malpractice victim as compensation for their lost future financial support and parental guidance – was “misinformed”, and then slashed the award down to $150,000.

Ouch kids!

——————– As my regular readers know, I was in Guatemala for the last few days taking deposition testimony. Why so far away to take testimony? I blogged about that here.

I love Guatemala. Beautiful country, weather and people. But some things are definitely better in the U.S. For example, the sidewalks in Guatemala City are treacherous. How treacherous? Take a look at these photos I took all within a few blocks of my hotel. And that’s the best section of Guatemala City!

Traveling to a country like Guatemala makes me appreciate U.S. “tort laws”, that is, the laws that allow us to sue for money damages if we are injured. These laws are necessary to keep us safe. If the laws are stripped from the books (as “tort reformers” would have it), there is no financial incentive for companies and others to keep things safe.

I’m posting this blog from my hotel here in Guatemala City where I am hanging out with my two clients, Hugo and Lucio, shown in the photo with me. You guessed it, I’m the tall one.

I already blogged about why this Central NY injury lawyer had to come all the way to Guatemala to take their testimony. Today’s blog is about how much I admire these guys. Why? They are outstanding fathers.

Several years ago they realized the three dollars a day they were earning working the corn fields in their pueblo wasn’t ever going to fill the hungry little mouths at home. So they did something about it. They “went north”, as they call the trek to the United States around here.

This Auburn New York personal injury lawyer has a new feather in his cap. I have been invited to speak at a state-wide meeting of New York Court of Claims judges in Cooperstown, NY on September 26. It appears that several judges read my recent article, which recently appeared in the New York Bar Law Journal, on the topic of “governmental immunity”, and want to hear me talk on the subject.

Governmental immunity is hot button topic for New York personal injury lawyers and judges. The “governmental immunity defense” can be raised by any governmental agency that is sued for personal injuries, including the State.

The Court of Appeals (New York’s highest Court) has recently come down with a series of rulings that tilts the playing field of this defense in favor of the government at the expense of victims of the government’s negligence. (That’s what I wrote about). Since Court of Claims judges preside over all personal injury claims brought against the State of New York, it is easy to see why the judges want to hear from me.

Next Tuesday I’ll be jumping on a plane to Central America. But I won’t be on vacation. I’ll be representing my Guatemalan clients as they get deposed, remotely, by video, from Syracuse, NY. There’ll be an interpreter with us.

How did I end up in Guatemala on a case? That story made the front page of the New York Law Journal and the Syracuse Post Standard. I blogged about that here.

Technology has changed every aspect of law practice. A few decades ago, what is about to transpire would have been impossible. Your Central NY injury lawyer will be sitting next to his clients in Guatemala City while insurance defense lawyers in Syracuse New York ask them questions by video. We will see those lawyers on the screen, and they will see my clients. They will be face to face. It’s kind of like Star Trek. “Beam me up, Scotty”! The video of my clients will later be presented to the jury.

Contact Information