Q: Another car collided with mine.  We had been traveling in the same direction, me in the right lane and him in the left lane.  Then the other driver made a sudden right turn in front of me.

A: Generally, a sudden right turn such as you describe is contrary to the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and it constitutes negligence.  The negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and there was no comparative negligence on your part.  You had the right-of-way, and so you were entitled to anticipate that the other motorist would obey the traffic law requiring him to yield to you.  Having the right-of-way, and only seconds to react, you were not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid this collision.

This would be true if the other driver had observed a parking spot located to the right, and had turned in order to enter the parking lot.  However, it is not always true.  Under section 1144(a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, a different rule applies in favor of an authorized emergency vehicle exhibiting a red light and sounding a siren.  In such a case, in a nutshell, you must basically yield the right of way and drive over to the curb.

Section 1144(a) does not impose on you a duty to warn nearby drivers of the oncoming emergency vehicle or to activate your own lights, blinkers or signals as an indicator to other motorists coming up behind or alongside your vehicle.  Whether you yourself might be deemed negligent with respect to a third vehicle, for how quickly you pull over to the curb, is an issue for another day.

By: Scott Baron,
Attorney at Law Advertorial

The law responds to changed conditions; exceptions and variations abound. Here, the information is general; always seek out competent counsel. This article shall not be construed as legal advice.

Copyright © 2014-2020 Scott Baron & Associates, P.C. All rights reserved. 159-49 Cross Bay Boulevard, Howard Beach, New York 11414 1750 Central Park Ave, Yonkers, NY 10710 718-738-9800, 914-337-9800, 1-866-927-4878

Q: I was injured in an auto accident, but the other driver had only $25,000 of liability coverage.  He says that was all his company would sell to him.  He was ‘high risk’ before our accident.  No wonder: as the accident proves, he is risky for sure.  Now my friends say I should have had SUM coverage.  What is that?

A: ‘SUM’ stands for ‘Supplemental Underinsured Motorist’ insurance.  I am sure that you do have it, but apparently not enough.  Your insurer was required to give you at least $25,000 of SUM coverage, but that gets eaten up right away by the $25,000 that the other driver had.  As it turns out, you needed more.  When you have only the minimum $25,000 of SUM coverage, it is good only for a driver who is totally uninsured.  If he has any liability coverage, in New York, then it is at minimum for $25,000.

The more that you are willing to assume that other drivers out there are underinsured, the more you should buy the same amount of SUM coverage as liability coverage.  Because not everybody is underinsured, the cost of SUM insurance is considerably less than that of your own insurance.  Ask your agent.

In these tough times, you may not feel like spending your hard-earned money on something that seems like an option.  The trouble is that the guy who slams into your car may have felt the same way when deciding to skimp on his own insurance.  How much extra will you spend?  Only your agent knows for sure.

By: Scott Baron,
Attorney at Law Advertorial

The law responds to changed conditions; exceptions and variations abound. Here, the information is general; always seek out competent counsel. This article shall not be construed as legal advice.

Copyright © 2009-2020 Scott Baron & Associates, P.C. All rights reserved. 159-49 Cross Bay Boulevard, Howard Beach, New York 11414 1750 Central Park Ave, Yonkers, NY 10710 718-738-9800, 914-337-9800, 1-866-927-4878

Q: I was a security officer.  While patrolling a hallway at a manufacturing plant, I slipped in a puddle and fell. I had not seen the water in the hallway prior to my fall, but upon falling I realized that my clothing was wet and sensed that water had been seeping from a large metal container that was used by the owner’s personnel in the manufacturing process.

My supervisor says that he found no water on the floor in that area, but admits that the owner’s personnel would put water in the containers and that sometimes there was water on the floor as a result of cleaning work.

A fellow security officer says that she patrolled the same area about 2 hours before I did, and saw no water at all.        

A: Because you were a security officer, the owner’s attorney may contend that you had been hired to detect precisely such a condition as this water, and accordingly should not be permitted to recover.  Nevertheless, even if the owner can establish that you were hired for such purposes as detecting a water spill, it is not at all certain that this would serve to insulate the owner from liability.

By: Scott Baron,
Attorney at Law Advertorial

The law responds to changed conditions; exceptions and variations abound. Here, the information is general; always seek out competent counsel. This article shall not be construed as legal advice.

Copyright © 2019-2020 Scott Baron & Associates, P.C. All rights reserved. 159-49 Cross Bay Boulevard, Howard Beach, New York 11414 1750 Central Park Ave, Yonkers, NY 10710 718-738-9800, 914-337-9800, 1-866-927-4878