From the Emergency Room to the Court Room
In an age where the personal injury lawyer glorifies mass tort litigation, MDLs, and class actions, I prefer the challenge of the car crash, slip and fall on debris or ice, construction worker accident, the defective product or the negligent doctor or hospital.
March 12, 2019 at 02:25 PM
6 minute read
The anatomy of a personal injury accident and the ensuing lawsuit is a thing of beauty. In an age where the personal injury lawyer glorifies mass tort litigation, MDLs, and class actions, I prefer the challenge of the car crash, slip and fall on debris or ice, construction worker accident, the defective product or the negligent doctor or hospital. The interesting prospective client ranges from a hodgepodge of very wealthy individuals to illegal alien. They are of all races and creeds: a mix of the 120-plus nationalities that populate the five boroughs: doctors, lawyers, judges, construction workers, Jews, Muslims, and the list goes on and on.
The office of a New York personal injury attorney must have Spanish speaking personnel as well as assistants that can translate Chinese and Korean to round out their staff.
After taking the initial facts and starting the investigation, which requires taking the ever crucial witness statements and photos (e.g., of the accident scene, the injury or the defective product), liability expert witnesses have to be retained.
Who to sue and where to sue is a creative process: what court (state or federal?) and what county (Kings, Bronx, New York or Westchester?). It is no mystery that some courts are more favorable to plaintiffs than other courts. After gathering all investigative materials and medical records, you must decide who to sue and what causes of action to include in your complaint.
If a truck or employee is involved, we can include a negligent entrustment and punitive damages claim which is always helpful in the ultimate resolution of the case. In construction worker cases you must be very specific in alleging the rules the owner or general contractor have violated. If you are suing a municipality you have to file a notice of claim. The defendant will ask you for time to answer your summons and complaint and it is given only if their attorney waves defenses or of jurisdiction and service of process. Here is your first chance to win your case. If the defendant fails to timely appear, you can move for a default judgment.
The next stage: discovery and depositions is where the fun begins. Each type of case has its own set of plaintiff's discovery demands: automotive, premises, construction accident, transit authority, product case, medial malpractice, and municipalities. You must be determined to get the right documents and witnesses with knowledge. (The best example of thoroughness is Caldecott v. Lilco, 417 F.2d, 994 (1969), where a very small entry (only seen with a magnifying glass) on a defendant's computer “leak on meter” made out the case against the defendant.)
Your second chance to win the case without a trial is the spoliation motion. After multiple attempts and orders to obtain depositions or discovery, the court can strike the defendants answer or allow the jury to draw favorable inferences in favor of plaintiff.
Your third chance to avoid a trial is a motion for summary judgment—which you should be thinking about when you take the case. Here is where you are expert witnesses, investigation and discovery comes in.
All of this should be done expeditiously. I have had cases come up for trial within one year of the accident (federal court), with an average of three to five years and as long as eight years.
At this stage with a case on the calendar the defendants might be willing to discuss settlement or private mediation. I prefer talking settlement when we have a firm trial date (to pick a jury), subpoenas have been served and all medicals are in court and the case is on the defendants' radar. I have settled cases during trial (settled at the high point) and while the jury is deliberating. Taking the verdict is the hard part. You must ask yourself if you are reading the jury correctly: How well has your case gone? Is there something in the judge's charge to the jury that creates a problem and has the judge created reversible error (such that you are now trying the case for the appellate court)? There is nothing more exciting than getting a favorable verdict.
You should always be trying the case for the jury, the judge, the defense attorney, and his/her adjuster, and for the appellate court.
These cases always involve challenging legal issues that are unique. In 1969 I argued in the Court of Appeals, Flannigan v. Mt. Eden Hospital, 24 N.Y.2d 427 (1969), that established the discovery rule in medical malpractice actions in foreign object cases. In Watson v. Colonial Sand and Stone, 38 A.D.2d 762 (2d Dep't. 1970), aff'd 31 N.Y.2d 685 (1972), a wrongful death automobile case, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff based upon the definition of “a marginal street.” In Newman v. RCPI Landmark Props, 28 N.Y.3d 1032, 1033 (2016)), in an action to recover for injuries incurred by plaintiff when he descended from a loading dock, using milk crates, a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied by the Court of Appeals where defendants' own submissions did not establish as a matter of law that their alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident, but left open the possibility that some negligence on their part contributed to the injuries incurred, and that there was a causal link between that alleged negligence and plaintiff's fall.
Perfecting and arguing an appeal is the most gratifying part of being a lawyer. With your trial memorandum of law given to the court at the start of the trial and memos during trial you should be prepared for your appellant brief.
As Clarence Darrow said “The only real lawyers are trial lawyers, and trial lawyers try cases to juries.”
Joseph Napoli is a partner at Napoli Shkolnik.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBankruptcy Filings Surged in First Half of 2024 Amid Uptick in Big Chapter 11 Cases
3 minute readLiving Life the 'Sid Kess Way': Renowned Tax Expert and Law Journal Columnist for More Than 50 Years Dies at 97
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250