This action arises from a motor vehicle accident occurred at approximately 5:30 p.m. The complainant asserts that the accident happened when his vehicle, moving slowly in stop, was struck in the rear by the opponent’s vehicle. The complainant claimed that the opponent admitted at his testimony that he did not see the complainant’s vehicle until the moment of collision and offered no explanation for the said incident other than his failure to pay attention to the road. The complainant asserts that the opponent was the negligent party and with that, he failed his duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident. The complainant additionally argues that the opponent cannot come up with a non-negligent explanation for striking his vehicle.
In opposition to the complainant’s motion, the opponent argues that there were no brake lights illuminated on the complainant’s vehicle just before the accident.
Based on records, when the driver of an automobile approaches another automobile from the rear, he or she is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and control over his or her vehicle to exercise reasonable care to avoid colliding with the other vehicle. In addition, a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a case of liability with respect to the operator of the rearmost vehicle, thereby requiring the operator to deny the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision. The vehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows, since the following driver is under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his or her car and the car ahead. Lastly, the drivers must maintain safe distances between their cars and the cars in front of them and the rule imposes on them a duty to be aware of traffic conditions including stopped vehicles
As a result of the accident, the complainant claims that he sustained injury as defined in the insurance law and which fall within the following legal categories of injuries which includes a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member, a significant limitation of use of a body function or system and a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person’s usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the impairment. However, the opponent seeks dismissal on personal injury complaint on the ground that the complainant did not sustain a serious spinal injury.
The opponents assert that the complainant admitted in his testimony that he received minimal treatment after the accident in which it showed that he failed to sustain serious injury from the accident.
A board certified orthopedic surgeon conducted an examination to the complainant. He diagnosed the complainant with cervical strain. He also states that the complainant is capable of his full duty work as a real estate broker without restrictions and he is capable of his activities of daily living.
A board certified radiologist also conducted an independent film review of the MRI results of the complainant’s cervical spine. He states that there is no evidence of post traumatic etiology that can be determined on the evaluation and the bilateral thyroid masses are unrelated to trauma.
Subsequently, the complainant testified that, at the time of the accident, he was employed as a real estate broker and he was confined to his bed for two days and at his home for a couple of weeks after the accident. Furthermore, the complainant is not claiming he was disabled for doing his normal activities for three months out of the first six months after the accident. He also argues that the health insurance claims forms submitted by his treating providers are further evidence that he did not sustain an injury which prevented him from working after the accident.
It is hard to get involve in an accident because aside from the emotional trauma, you might experience a severe physical impairment. If you happen to get yourself in a vehicular collision and you want to seek damages for the injuries you attain, you can ask legal assistance from the Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer or Nassau County Injury Attorney. You can also request Stephen Bilkis and Associates for the expertise of their Nassau County Spinal Injury Attorneys.