View Full Version : Bicycle Lawyer in NYC???
So I've got one for you...A friend of mine was recently involved in an accident on his bike. Sparing you the details, he was swerving to avoid an insane cab driver and ended up running into a woman pedestian and knocking her over. She was a little banged up, but he called her an ambulance (when she requested it), gave her all of his info, waited with her for the paramedics. He waited to make sure she was OK and in no pain. Now she's got some hack "attorney" (a web search turned up nothing on this guy) threatening him to settle, or be taken to court. Needless to say my buddy is worried. I was hoping someone on this forum might have know who to call, someone specializing in bike accidents?
Little Darwin
10-31-05, 11:13 AM
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
I suspect that any competent lawyer used to dealing with vehicular issues would be fine. The extra few paragraphs of motor vehicle code that relate specifically to bicycles are probably irrelevant to the heart of this case.
Any lawyer could look at the relevant code and be up to speed in minutes in case the opponent's weasel decides to challenge the cyclist's right to be on the road (which is the only cycling specific aspect of the suit I could envision a weasel trying to whip up).
I hope your friend does well in this, although it is going to be hard because it sounds like he is the one of the two of them most at fault (unless the lady was jay walking or doing something else to place herself in peril). If the cabby can not be identified and be given an appropriate and hefty share of the blame it may be tough to make a case defending your friend from all financial responsibility.
I think he's willing to make some reparations, I just hope this woman is not trying to take him to the cleaners.
timmhaan
10-31-05, 11:20 AM
contact transportation alternatives. look it up on the internet - there may be some lawyer contact info or at least a general email address for you to ask. they're good advocacy people so i'm sure it would be a good starting point.
San Rensho
10-31-05, 01:21 PM
A couple of ideas, but to give better advice I would need some clarification on the following issues.
First, was she at fault in the accident? If she was jay-walking and he was cut-off by a cab, then the cabbie is primarily at fault, not your buddy.
I would recommend that he determine whether he has insurance to cover him. If thats the case, the ins. co. will take care of everything for him. I don't practice in new york, but if he has a car, maybe his car insurance will cover it. If he was working at the time, then possibly his employers's liability ins will cover it. If he has homeowners ins, check that(althought thats probably a stretch). I would advise him against giving a statement to the attorney until after he determines whether there is insurance.
If he has no ins and no assets, then he should talk directly to the attorney after making it clear that he is only talking to the attorney as part of settlement negotiations. Tell the attorney that he is not at fault, the woman was jaywalking (if that was the case) and/or that the cabbie is really at fault (if that was the case), that he should go after the cabbie and that he has no money, that if the lawyer files a lawsuit he will only be wasting his time and money since your friend has no assets(he is probably on a contingency fee basis which means he doesn't get paid till he gets something from your friend.) This will usually dissuade him.
If he has money, then he should get an attorney. The NY bar has a referral service.
Free advice from an attorney in Florida. See, we're not all that bad.
you could always email the guys from http://bicycledefensefund.org/ they're all stand up people and probably know who to talk to.
oboeguy
10-31-05, 01:56 PM
I think the TA Century was partially sponsored by a bike-friendly lawyer named Adam White. His info was on the water bottles we got at the end.
A quick search and I find that yes this is true: http://www.transalt.org/info/lawyers.html
Good luck!
If there was no physical contact with the cab driver, no witnesses, and the cab driver was not ID'd, then it will simply be a matter of cyclist vs pedestrian as far as everyone is concerned.
If the cyclist has no insurance, and no assets, then there is no need for him to attempt to settle anything with the lawyer. No attorney is going to bother trying to get blood from a turnip.
[edit] Post or PM me the attorney's name and any info you have, and I'll happily give you all the details about him I can find. It's part of what I used to do for an insurance company.
Cab driver is not at fault. He wasn't involved in the accident and has nothing to do with it, thats how the law sees it. He may be a reckless driver or other things ut theres nothing to be done about it.
Say I run into an old lady, and then say I had to swerve a cab. I can't prove it, and theres no reason to take my word for it. Thats how it works here in cali.
I came up on a scooter in the road ahead of the car, the illegal types of underpowered ones. I thought it was a bicycle with no reflectors. Hard to see, until the light his just right. I saw it soon enough to change lanes. I realized an older 280Z had been behind and watched in the rearview as he swrved and lost control of his car and hit a curb hard. The scooter tried to flee so I chased him down and made him return or I threatened to run him off the road and drag him back. We flagged down a cop and they did paperwork. They were gonna just let him go since he wasn't involved in the accident even though they knew his actions caused it. All the driver of the Z could do was sue in small claims court for up to 5k and win since it was witnessed.
However I informed the cops tht he had broken the law by driving an illegal scooter with no lights, no license, no plates, and no insurance. This was enough to get his scooter impounded for 30 days. The fees would be as much as a new scooter so h would nver get it back hopefully.
Blue Order
10-31-05, 07:37 PM
FLMMKR: Keep in mind that, with one exception, the posts in response to your question are not from attorneys. Your friend should consult with an attorney if he can afford to; he'll get legal advice, rather than personal opinion. If he's represented by an attorney, the opposing attorney will be prohibited from talking directly with your friend-- he'll have to talk with your friend's attorney. If your friend can't afford an attorney, he should be careful about admitting to anything in his discussions with the pedestrian's attorney. Finally, if this accident is covered by insurance (say under an auto policy) your friend's insurance company will foot the bill for legal defense.
I should point out that all my comments are facts, not mere opinions.
Blue Order
10-31-05, 07:56 PM
There's only one licensed attorney posting, and he was the only poster who didn't feel competent to offer his legal opinion on the accident without knowing the facts of the case. Kind of funny how the non-attorneys stepped right up and offered more "legal advice" than the attorney did.
Fact: Without a witness to substantiate that the cab driver was driving in a dangerous manner, liability rests solely on the cyclist.
Fact: Attornies work on either a retainer or contingency basis. In this case, it is most likely on a contingency basis.
Fact: If the cyclist has no assets, the attorney has zero motivation to pursue him, as 33% of nothing is nothing.
Fact: I spent 10 years handling subrogation claims for an insurance company. There is nothing to be gained by pursuing people that have no assets.
Blue Order
10-31-05, 08:29 PM
Fact: Without a witness to substantiate that the cab driver was driving in a dangerous manner, liability rests solely on the cyclist.
Fact: Attornies work on either a retainer or contingency basis. In this case, it is most likely on a contingency basis.
Fact: If the cyclist has no assets, the attorney has zero motivation to pursue him, as 33% of nothing is nothing.
Fact: I spent 10 years handling subrogation claims for an insurance company. There is nothing to be gained by pursuing people that have no assets.Fact: You're not qualified to give legal advice.
Fact: You're not qualified to give legal advice.
I haven't provided any legal advice.
Blue Order
10-31-05, 08:41 PM
I haven't provided any legal advice.Your first "fact" is a an opinion on a matter of law.
nycm'er
10-31-05, 08:41 PM
Fact: You're not qualified to give legal advice.
I rarely agree with anything Exp. says, but I'd take what he has said as sound, non-legal advice.
To the OP, please tell us how this plays out. There are some sketchy laws about bike on ped collisions, and a good lawyer could probably get your friend out of any hot water. Was his bike messed up? Was she was jaywalking? I have had lawyers tell me they could get money from jaywalker I hit, ( breaking my collar bone =no work for 7 weeks and damaging my bike)
MrRed Thanks for the good words for Freewheels, but I would contact the accident lawyers connected with TA.
Blue Order
10-31-05, 08:50 PM
FLMMKR: You've received some very helpful responses from cyclists about legal resources. You've also received advice from an attorney, as well as from non-attorneys. The attorney who responded is the only poster who is qualified to practice law, and he's only qualified to practice in states in which he has passed the bar. Keep that difference in legal opinions in mind. My own advice to you would be to follow the attorney's advice, and to explore the legal resoucres suggested here.
Your first "fact" is a an opinion on a matter of law.
Would you like me to edit it?
It should read "Without a witness to substantiate that the cab driver was driving in a dangerous manner, responsibility (for this accident) rests solely on the cyclist.
If the pedestrian was jay-walking, that would change things. But if they were, I doubt they would have found an attorney to take their case.
Blue Order
10-31-05, 08:52 PM
Would you like me to edit it?
It should read "Without a witness to substantiate that the cab driver was driving in a dangerous manner, responsibility (for this accident) rests solely on the cyclist.Still an opinion on a matter of law.
I rarely agree with anything Exp. says, but I'd take what he has said as sound, non-legal advice.
The bartender at Ellen O'Dee's near The Shelbourne Murray Hill is as Irish and racist as they come. You can't beat hot chestnuts in the winter. A Snapple and a pretzel is a perfectly acceptable lunch once in a while. Docks has great seafood. If you're going to smoke a cigar, buy it at Nat Sherman's. America is over-rated.
Blue Order
10-31-05, 08:58 PM
You can't beat hot chestnuts in the winter.You're right-- I had great hot chestnuts in December in Ljubljana.
Still an opinion on a matter of law.
It's actually a fact. Without being able to prove that there was another contributory party, the cyclist is on his own.
Re: Chestnuts. I was just hoping to get my NYC friend to agree with me on something, anything, else.
Blue Order
10-31-05, 09:34 PM
It's actually a fact. Without being able to prove that there was another contributory party, the cyclist is on his own.
Re: Chestnuts. I was just hoping to get my NYC friend to agree with me on something, anything, else.A matter of fact and a matter of law are two different things. There was an accident and a pedestrian was injured. Those are matters of fact. Who is responsible is a matter of law, and that is for the court to decide. In order to prove his case, the pedestrian's attorney has to prove each element of the tort he is claiming. He has to establish that certain facts happened, and that those facts meet the elements of the tort, and that as a matter of law, his client is entitled to relief. And he has to get the court-- whether it's a judge or a jury and judge-- to agree.
Dchiefransom
10-31-05, 09:36 PM
Heck, here in California, it would still be the cyclist's fault, even if the cab had knocked him into the pedestrian. If I'm sitting in my car at a traffic light, and someone rearends me, pushing me into the car in front of me, my insurance company has to pay the guy in front of me.
A matter of fact and a matter of law are two different things. There was an accident and a pedestrian was injured. Those are matters of fact. Who is responsible is a matter of law, and that is for the court to decide. In order to prove his case, the pedestrian's attorney has to prove each element of the tort he is claiming. He has to establish that certain facts happened, and that those facts meet the elements of the tort, and that as a matter of law, his client is entitled to relief. And he has to get the court-- whether it's a judge or a jury and judge-- to agree.
I merely stated a fact. As previously noted, I did not offer legal advice. Thanks for that.
Heck, here in California, it would still be the cyclist's fault, even if the cab had knocked him into the pedestrian. If I'm sitting in my car at a traffic light, and someone rearends me, pushing me into the car in front of me, my insurance company has to pay the guy in front of me.
Not true. That depends on the integrity and recollection of the party in front of you, along with that of the party behind you.
Blue Order
10-31-05, 09:50 PM
I merely stated a fact. As previously noted, I did not offer legal advice. Thanks for that.A pedestrian was knocked down. That is a fact. The cyclist may or may not be responsible. That is not a fact. That is a question of law. Whether the cyclist is responsible depends upon statutes, case law, and the facts of the case, as well as any allowable defenses.
The facts of the case are unknown. That is why the attorney who posted needed clarification of the facts before he could comment more specifically.
Dchiefransom
10-31-05, 09:53 PM
I merely stated a fact. As previously noted, I did not offer legal advice. Thanks for that.
Not true. That depends on the integrity and recollection of the party in front of you, along with that of the party behind you.
That's weird. It happened to my Father-in-Law. All three cars were still there, with his messed up on both ends. His insurance ended up paying the guy in front of him. My agent said it's to save insurance companies money, so one company won't have to pay for several cars. Hopefully I won't have to find out for myself.
A pedestrian was knocked down. That is a fact. The cyclist may or may not be responsible. That is not a fact. That is a question of law. Whether the cyclist is responsible depends upon statutes, case law, and the facts of the case, as well as any allowable defenses.
The facts of the case are unknown. That is why the attorney who posted needed clarification of the facts before he could comment more specifically.
You must just be here for the argument? If the pedestrian was not jay-walking, the cyclist is responsible. But there is a big difference between liability and responsibility. If there was a 3rd party that contributed to this, it's the responsibility of the cyclist to prove that he alone was not 100% liable.
That's weird. It happened to my Father-in-Law. All three cars were still there, with his messed up on both ends. His insurance ended up paying the guy in front of him. My agent said it's to save insurance companies money, so one company won't have to pay for several cars. Hopefully I won't have to find out for myself.
Sounds fishy. There may have been a payment made to settle the claim of the car in front, but then the middle company would pursue the car in back. It gets messy when there's an uninsured party in back as well. The severity of damages and amount of impacts (1 vs 2 for the front car) usually helps to determine who is at fault.
Blue Order
10-31-05, 10:13 PM
You must just be here for the argument? If the pedestrian was not jay-walking, the cyclist is responsible. But there is a big difference between liability and responsibility. If there was a 3rd party that contributed to this, it's the responsibility of the cyclist to prove that he alone was not 100% liable.This is ridiculous. There's only one attorney who's responded, and he had nowhere near the certainty on questions of law that you, a non-attorney, have. I'm not here for the argument-- I'm here to make sure that the original poster understands that there's a difference between opinions from non-attorneys and advice from attorneys.
And I've had my say, so I'm done with it.
FLMMKR: Your friend needs to consult with an attorney.
This is ridiculous. There's only one attorney who's responded, and he had nowhere near the certainty on questions of law that you, a non-attorney, have. I'm not here for the argument-- I'm here to make sure that the original poster understands that there's a difference between opinions from non-attorneys and advice from attorneys.
And I've had my say, so I'm done with it.
FLMMKR: Your friend needs to consult with an attorney.
The lawyer that posted didn't state what his specialty was, so that has no bearing here. I did not make my comments based on the law, I based them on experience. It's a very practical tool. Is there anything I posted that you find to be incorrect or inaccurate? From now on, I shall preface my comments with the words "I'm not an attorney, but it has been my professional experience that..."
Heck, here in California, it would still be the cyclist's fault, even if the cab had knocked him into the pedestrian. If I'm sitting in my car at a traffic light, and someone rearends me, pushing me into the car in front of me, my insurance company has to pay the guy in front of me.
Exactly. goes right along with the guy not touching a cyclist, cyclist swerves and hits someone, still the cyclist fault. Talk to a policeman or look for a lawyer that offers free consultations or free phone advice.
Exactly. goes right along with the guy not touching a cyclist, cyclist swerves and hits someone, still the cyclist fault. Talk to a policeman or look for a lawyer that offers free consultations or free phone advice.
What you're referring to is contributory negligence, which is frequently difficult to prove. It could just as easily be argued that the cyclist failed to maintain control of his vehicle, which in this case is a bicycle. Talking to a police officer would be no help in this situation. The cyclist in question needs to find out what the injured party is demanding as far as compensation. The attorney for the injured party will need to decide if the cyclist is a good candidate for recovery.
I'm not an attorney, but it has been my professional experience as a subrogation claims person that in California, if a motorists rear-ends someone, pushing them into another vehicle, they will be held responsible for all the damages they have caused. As stated above, the insurance company for the middle vehicle may elect to pay for the damages of the vehicle in front, but they will pursue the vehicle in back for this payment. This would happen if the middle vehicle was insured, but the back vehicle wasn't.
The Seldom Kill
11-01-05, 02:53 AM
In accidents responsibility is and always be a matter of law and it is solely for the representatives of the law to decide who or what is responsible and how that affects liability. This from a said representative of the law, not an attorney, lawyer or barrister but a judge.
Only if they go to court. Until they actually go to court, the law is whatever they think it is.
And another thing. Responsibility is *not* a matter of law, you've got cause and effect backwards. The law is a formal mechanism for resolving disputes, but the responsbility would exist even if the law did not.
The Seldom Kill
11-01-05, 07:13 AM
but the responsbility would exist even if the law did not.
True but because law does exist responsibility is a matter of it.
San Rensho
11-01-05, 08:13 AM
It is well established law in many states (again I don't claim to know what the law is in NY) that if driver1 drives negligently and causes another driver, driver 2 to strike a third party (vehicle or pedestrian or property) driver 1 is responsible for the damages suffered by the 3rd party, whether or not there was actual contact between driver 1 and driver 2. That is the law in many jurisdictions. As Blue Order correctly pointed out, there are issues of law and issues of fact.
Whether driver 2 can establish that driver 1 was negligent is an issue of fact. Driver 2 asserts that a cab (for example) cut him off, causing him to swerve and hit something else. If he can prove those facts to a fact finder, e.g. a judge or jury, then according to the law above, driver 1 is responsible for the 3rd parties damages. As far as the evidence that driver 2 has to produce to prove his case, in most jurisdictions all he needs is his statement that he was run off the road. That is sufficient to get the judge or jury to rule on the issue of whether driver 1 was negligent. Note, this doesn't mean that driver 2 wins, this means that the trier of fact can take into consideration the issue of driver 1's negligence. The judge or jury can always rule that they don't believe driver 2's story, but if they do believe driver 2, then driver 1 is responsible for the 3rd parties damages. So in this case, if driver 2 has witnesses, then it is more likely the trier of fact will believe driver 2's version of the facts, but driver 2 is not required to have witnesses in order to get the trier of fact to rule on his contention that driver 1 was at fault.
Note that in this example in order to keep this as straightforward as possible, I have not addressed the issue of comparative negligence. Most states have adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence in which the trier of fact must apportion the % of fault (negligence) among the actors. In a nutshell, this is how it works. In the scenario above, just by way of example, the trier of fact could determine that yes, driver 1 negligently cut off driver 2, but driver 2's brakes weren't working correctly due to negligent maintenance which didn't allow him to stop in time, striking a pedestrian that was negligently jay walking.
The trier of fact could rule that driver 1 was 90% at fault, driver 2 was 2% at fault and pedestrian was 8% at fault. Then, driver 2 would only be responsible for 2% of the pedestrians total damages (lets assume the total damages are $100.00) or $2 minus 8% (the percentage the pedestrian was at fault), for a grand total of $1.84. Or the trier of fact could say that any one of the actors was 100% at fault or any possible combination thereof. Again, these figures are just for demonstration purposes, I don't have enough information to give a specific opinion in the poster's case.
Thats why, Dchiefransom in your situation, the classic "sandwich" car accident, the middle driver can be partially at fault and responsible for the 1st driver's damages, but only if he was negligent, for example, if he did not leave a reasonable distance between him and the car in front of him, and, the middle car would only responsible for the % that he was at fault. The last driver, however, would still be primarily negligent.
Finally, NYcm'r raises a good point, your friend may also have a claim against the pedestrian (if she was jaywalking) and the cabbie, if he can find him, for their negligence, assuming he has bodily injuries and/or property damage. If he can, based on the facts, file a claim, it is also gives him a very good negotiation position, he can tell the jawalker's attorney, you drop your claims against me and I will drop my claims against you. The best defense is a good offense.
San Rensho
11-01-05, 08:22 AM
By the way, 90% of my practice is in the area of personal injury on the side of the plaintiffs, the majority of my PI cases are car accidents, most with issues of insurance coverage and comparative negligence. I've been practicing for 18 years.
In accidents responsibility is and always be a matter of law and it is solely for the representatives of the law to decide who or what is responsible and how that affects liability. This from a said representative of the law, not an attorney, lawyer or barrister but a judge.
Liability is a matter of law, responsibility is not.
San Rensho, thank you for that rather lengthy explanation. What do you do when the defendant has no assets?
San Rensho
11-01-05, 01:16 PM
I tell my client there is no point in going forward with the case. That is why I wrote in my original post that if the bicyclist has no assets, he should tell the pedestrian's attorney that fact during settlement negotiations.
I tell my client there is no point in going forward with the case. That is why I wrote in my original post that if the bicyclist has no assets, he should tell the pedestrian's attorney that fact during settlement negotiations.
Got it. You call them "Settlement negotiations". In the insurance industry, we just get a "Go pound sand" letter from the claimant, and then decide what course of action to take from there. You've got roughly twice the time in the business I had, but I'm sure I made it up in volume. There's no way the cyclist will be able to prove contributory negligence on the part of the cabby, as there was no mention of him being ID'd, nor have we been told of any potential witnesses. The pedestrian is unlikely to corroborate that version as well, as it's not in their interest to put any blame on a party that can't be located.
So what's your take on this situtation? Apparently, Blue Order has something against me.
What I'd like to know is, where was the pedestrian hit? And who had the light?
Hypothetically, if he's in the middle of the street, going with traffic, has the green, and a cabbie cuts him off, so he serves let's say into another lane, then hits the pedestrian, then the FACT is, that he hit a pedestrian who was on the road when cars had the green.
On the other hand, there have been quite a few accidents where cars have jumped the curb due to the driver blacking out, being hit by another car, etc, and plowed into a bunch of pedestrians on the sidewalk. You might want to see what was involved in those cases too.
Slvoid, shouldn't we just shoot them all? :D
Slvoid, shouldn't we just shoot them all? :D
Well I was going to say, if this was at some odd hour of the night w/o anyone around, he should've put one to the head to make sure she stayed down then biked away.
But unfortunately, she survived. Another thing I'm not sure about is how malicious her intent is, does she want compensation for like, the expensive salon nails she broke or is she out for blood?
Well I was going to say, if this was at some odd hour of the night w/o anyone around, he should've put one to the head to make sure she stayed down then biked away.
But unfortunately, she survived. Another thing I'm not sure about is how malicious her intent is, does she want compensation for like, the expensive salon nails she broke or is she out for blood?
Thought you were getting soft on those peds. Thanks for clarifying.
rideabike
11-01-05, 04:31 PM
It is an opinion on a matter of law.
It's actually a fact. Without being able to prove that there was another contributory party, the cyclist is on his own.
Re: Chestnuts. I was just hoping to get my NYC friend to agree with me on something, anything, else.
It is an opinion on a matter of law.
Indeed. Based on many years of experience.
nycm'er
11-01-05, 08:19 PM
Indeed. Based on many years of experience.
Yes, we agree, America is overrated.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.