A conservative wind is blowing in recent decisions scrutinizing plaintiffs’ proof of injuries in automobile accident cases on threshold dismissal motions. The courts have shown an increasing propensity to summarily dismiss these cases for failure to establish a prima facie case of a “serious injury” under the no-fault law and to even make findings of fact in reaching these decisions.
In an earlier column, we expressed our opinion that although the Court of Appeals’ decision in Oberly v. Bangs Ambulance, 96 N.Y.295, essentially eliminated an entire category of injuries for which lawsuits could be commenced under the no-fault law, the remaining categories were more important and that Oberly would not substantially restrict plaintiffs’ recourse. The true significance of Oberly seems to be that it is symptomatic of a more-generalized conservative and restrictive approach by the courts in making threshold determinations as to the severity of injuries sustained in automobile accidents.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
