Source: New York Times
Two years after a horrific wrong-way crash on the Taconic Parkway made national headlines when eight people were killed, a new lawsuit was filed that looks to examine if the State of New York shares blame.
Toxicology reports after the crash had showed minivan driver Diane Schuler was drunk and high when going the wrong way on the Taconic while loaded down with kids, only to slam head-on into an SUV carrying Michael Bastardi Sr., Guy Bastardi and Daniel Longo of Yonkers. All three were killed. Ms. Schuler of Long Island was also killed, as were one of her own children and three nieces in her minivan. The sole survivor of the crash was another of Schuler’s children, 5-year-old Bryan.
Now comes a lawsuit by the Estate of Diane Schuler against the State of New York that owns and maintains the highway, which will explore whether the State shares responsibility for this horrific crash with Ms. Schuler.
While the gut reaction of many is to demonize the drunk driver and vilify the husband for defending her, that is not my gut response when I put on my lawyer hat. For if the entrance/exit ramp was poorly designed and signed (I write “if” since I don’t know), then in fact there may be some portion of liability for the State. And that comes under the theory that, if poorly designed, this was an accident waiting to happen. A trap for the unwary, or impaired.
And remember that impairment may take several forms, not just the self-induced kind. There could be weather or medical conditions that could likewise cause impairments. This is not exactly unknown to those that design roadways who are charged with the duty of making them as safe as reasonably possible.
So if, in fact, a defective roadway design is found (and there may well be other complaints/incidents regarding it that the attorneys would be looking to investigate), then we may see the State of New York on the hook for a portion of the damages.
In today’s Journal News, Michael Bastardi Jr., who lost his father and brother in the crash, was quoted as saying that:
“Daniel Schuler (the husband) is blaming “everything and everyone except his wife.”
“He’s just avoiding the true reasons on why this all happened,” the younger Bastardi said. “It’s pathetic and it’s an insult to all of us.”
Mr. Bastardi may be right, but then again he might be partially in error if there were other incidents or complaints regarding the same entrance/exit interchange. And that is the part where we need to put on our thinking caps, and go through the issues of whether a wrong way driver was reasonably foreseeable at that spot, and what (if anything) could have been done about it. It may well be a fruitless exercise, but one can’t reach that verdict without at least looking at the evidence.
There are a lot of lawsuits in this case — at least five I think — with loads of different conflicts due to the nature of family members being killed. For example, Daniel Schuler is a victim, having lost his wife and child and had another badly injured. He and his young children have sued their mother, and he represents them. And he may also be a beneficiary of suits by the Estates of his wife and lost daughter. And Warren Nance, sister of Diane Schuler and father of the three daughters killed in the crash is a victim, plaintiff, and defendant (as owner of the car and having had a discussion with Diane that day).
As a result, I won’t try to untangle the mess of lawsuits going on, and confine myself to the narrow subject of the suit against the State, but for those interested, here is a list of the suits (I’ve shortened the titles a bit), with some of the documents, followed by additional news links.
Also, note that suits against the State can only be brought in the Court of Claims, and are non-jury. Court of Claims suits may not have other defendants, thus the litigation proceeds on two tracks even if all the other cases brought in the main trial court (Supreme Court) are consolidated.
These are the suits, as best I can determine, with the first one being the Court of Claims case:
4. Roseann M. Guzzo, as Administratrix Of Estate Of Guy T. Bastardi, and Roseann M. Guzzo and Irving Anolik, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Michael Bastardi, Sr. v. Estate Of Diane Schuler, and Warren J. Hance (BastardiSummonsandComplant; Brian Sichol is plaintiff’s counsel)
5. I don’t have a copy of this one yet, but the three Hance nieces v. Estate of Diane Schuler and ? (Represented by Kenneth Pryor of Mineola)
ABC News: Mother of 3 Girls Killed in Taconic Crash Sues Daniel Schuler
New York Post: Wrong Way Family Feud
Overlawyered: Diane Schuler’s husband suing state, brother-in-law over wrong-way Taconic crash
One important correction: The suit I filed was on behalf of the Estate of Diane Schuler v. State of New York. I do not represent the estate of Erin Schuler or Bryan Schuler, although Bryan Schuler would be entitled to receive damages if my suit for the wrongful death of his mother is successful.
David Waterbury
The only ones getting rich off from this are the attorneys. There was ONE person at fault. There’s no other fault on anyone’s part nor on the state of New York.
Tell me, Dave, how does it feel to attempt to rob the taxpayers of the state of New York?
The only ones getting rich off from this are the attorneys. There was ONE person at fault. There’s no other fault on anyone’s part nor on the state of New York.
Tell me, Dave, how does it feel to attempt to rob the taxpayers of the state of New York?
You do realize that this is a contradiction, right? If there is no viable case against the State, and counsel has taken the case on contingency (as is generally the case) then the attorney has lost his time. And as Abe Lincoln said, “A lawyer's time and advice are his stock in trade."
It is a ruthlessly efficient system of attorneys weeding out bad cases so that they don't waste their time. When we analyze wrong, we bear the burden.
@Ron –
You forgot the other people getting rich: the surviving family members. Even after the evil lawyers take their cut, those lucky family members can live the rest of their lives carefree and in luxury off the millions dropped in their laps by from all those people killed. Wouldn’t you like to be so lucky, Ron?
You dont know that, it’s only your opinion. Since you don’t know all the facts, your opinion is pretty worthless. If the facst show that the State shares some responsibility, they should be held responsible. That’s what justice means. So I’m not trying to rob anybody.
Nobody will “get rich” from this, even if it is successful. Bryan lost his mother. Danny lost his wife. Both lost the family’sAin bread-winner. No amount of money will make them “rich” in the face of this loss. Plus, any damages award will be reduced by Diane Schuler’s obviously substantial share of responsibility.
@David E. Waterbury –
I was being sarcastic, and was addressing Ron’s contention that only the parties’ lawyers would get “rich” and no one else would see any or little compensation. I hope your clients and the rest of the plaintiffs succeed in this tragic case.
It is said that the only ones getting rich off from this are the attorneys. There was ONE person at fault. There’s no other fault on anyone’s part nor on the state of New York
Separate the wheat from the chaff. Diane Schuler is almost irrelevant insofar as this case is concerned. I’ve read remarks from two other people in other forums on the web asserting that the exit/entrance are this road are confusing. Proving or disproving that assertion is all that this case is about. If the markings are bad, the state fcked up and the situation needs to be corrected. However much you may choose to condemn Diane Schuler, and even if alcohol/pot are the meanest boogie men in that crash, if bad road markings contributed in any degree to the deaths of 8 people, the markings need to be examined to determine if safety is being compromised. If the state refuses to do it on its own, the courts should force it to be done.
Just as a prostitute can be raped by a John, satisfying legal definitions of a crime, bad road markings can contribute to an inebriated person being involved in an accident. Inebriation does not automatically mean that the victim loses all rights to be protected by the laws of the land. A man who rapes a drunk woman is still a criminal; bad signage is still bad signage even if experienced by a drunk. The question to be answered in this lawsuit is whether the signage is so bad as to be endangering public safety even when alcohol is not a mitigating factor. Presumably a stone cold sober person would have recognized their mistake and gotten off the highway but accident reports are filled with stone cold sober people reacting slowly or inaccurately to traffic conditions. It is the role & responsibility of traffic safety engineers to create signage that helps prevent accidents. If they fail to do so, and the state refuses to take corrective action, the courts must force them to do so. We should not be so focused on demonizing alcohol/marijuana that we lose track of the bigger picture. If the signage is bad, fix it. The next mini van full of people may NOT be driven by a drunk.
David:
The American civil legal system has very little to do with “justice”. As a lawyer who has a vested interest in the status quo, I don’t expect you to understand.
As a lawyer who has a vested interest in the status quo, I don’t expect you to understand.
Well, the status quo is that, if the case is dismissed by the judge, he doesn’t get paid. So I suspect he understands quite a bit more than you think.
Eric:
How many times have you driven this stretch of the Taconic? I have more times than I can count. I am no lawyer or judge but as a lowly driver (not drunk and stoned) I can tell you first-hand this road is fine. This suit is purely bs. As a lawyer who has commented on the subject before, you have seen more than more than a few of your brethran that throw everything against the wall to see what sticks.
It seems rather telling that the commenter talked about justice in the legal system, and that Mr. Turkewitz’s response talked about the lawyer getting paid as if this is all justice is about.
It seems rather telling that the commenter talked about justice in the legal system, and that Mr. Turkewitz’s response talked about the lawyer getting paid as if this is all justice is about.
You have to read it in the context of the entire thread. Joe was responding to David who was responding to Ron. Read Ron’s comment.
In fact, it was I who introduced the issue of justice into this whole discussion by saying that justice is what I am seeking on behalf of my client. Justice in the form of everybody or entity that shares some responsibility should be made to share the costs of the harms done. Joe then made the claim, which I totally disagree with, that there is precious little justice in the civil justice system and said that I probably don’t understand that since I “have a vested interest in the status quo” (another thing I disagree with.) Eric’s point was that I probably understand more about the “status quo” than Joe was giving me credit for since my economic survival depends on my having a firm grasp on the vagaries of that status quo. In context, Eric was standing up for my nuanced understanding of the status quo, which is what was being challenged, NOT for my right to earn a fee on this or any other particular case, particularly if it is determined by the legally proper entity to be without merit. Also, the fact that lawyers like myself, or Eric, don’t get paid if our cases are lost, has much more to do with justice than you are giving it credit for, and, at least partially, puts the lie to Joe’s claim that the “civil legal system has very little to do with ‘justice.'”
“lie to Joe’s claim that the “civil legal system has very little to do with ‘justice.’”
You mean the “lie” that I have actually driven the taconic and therefore know the bunch of gobblygook that you are peddling has nothing to do with justice? You are a good example of what is wrong with the US civil system.
There’s an old saying better to keep your mouth shut an thought a fool than to open it and be shown to be one. If Eric Turkewitz doesn’t know the conditions at the ramp then he has no business citing it as possible mitigating circumstances. The ultimate issue here is if the guy’s wife was drunk then she was at fault and her estate can be sued. Follow the money. Her estate = his estate.