August 8th, 2007

New York Steam Pipe Explosion Victims, Badly Burned, File Suit

Two people in a red tow truck at the center of the massive New York steam pipe explosion on July 18th have filed suit, according to newspaper reports. Both were badly burned as they jumped to safety from the truck through the steam. At least two other suits have been filed, one of which I discussed here.

The explosion near Grand Central station, right near my office, resulted in frozen streets and businesses in addition to one death and numerous injuries. The intersection at Lexington and 41st street is still closed, and barriers, trucks and temporary piping still fill the streets.

The news of the lawsuits, not exactly unexpected, came the same day that Con Ed officials appeared before the City Council and failed to explain how and why the explosion occurred.

July 30th, 2007

Every Dog Gets One Bite

A child suffered serious personal injuries when bitten on the face by a dog, and brought this New York action. But the plaintiff’s attempt at summary judgment was rejected. Why?

The old saying in the title comes from the concept of notice. As in, the owner of a dog that bites someone must have notice of a dog’s vicious propensities in order to make that bite actionable.

In Earl v. Piowaty decided last week by New York’s Appellate Division (3rd Dept.), the court returned to the time-honored principle that “the owner of a domestic animal who either knows or should have known of that animal’s vicious propensities will be held liable for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities.”

But, when the only evidence of a prior “viciousness” was a prior “nip” that the child described as “so minor that it did not break the skin or hurt me,” then summary judgment would not be granted. Normal canine behavior does not qualify.

Woof.

July 24th, 2007

NYC Woman Sues Con Edison Over Steam Pipe Explosion

The first of what will surely be many lawsuits over the steam pipe explosion last week in mid-town Manhattan has been filed against the utility company, Con Edison. The plaintiff, whose sister was killed at the World Trade Center in the September 11th attack, suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.

The explosion — just one block north and one block east of my office — certainly rattled more than a few as they fled the scene. In my own office suite, those still in the office heard the eruption and felt the building shake, as the alarms went off and evacuations took place down the stairwells. Out on the streets police were yelling at people to run away from the area, with more than a few pair of women’s shoes left by the wayside as folks sought refuge.

In addition to a number of personal injury suits I expect to be filed against Con Ed, there will no doubt be many commercial suits. The site of the explosion, which I walked past just an hour ago as I went for lunch, is still sealed off, and with it access to many businesses.

July 20th, 2007

New York Appellate Court Decides Eyes Are Not Window To Soul

Poets will not be happy. Nor lovers. Nor anyone else that has gazed into the eyes of another to see what they say.

A New York appellate court has decided that the loss of an eye is not a “grave injury” under the Worker’s Compensation law. Because the victim had a prosthetic eye, the court ruled, he didn’t have a “permanent and severe facial disfigurement” as defined by the law.

The Court wrote:

Here, the record contains no evidence that plaintiff suffered a severe facial disfigurement as a result of the injury sustained. Although a surgically removed eye clearly results in a permanent condition, plaintiff wears a prosthesis which is removed only once a year for cleaning. As Supreme Court aptly noted, the photographs of plaintiff wearing the prosthesis demonstrate little difference, if any, in his facial appearance before and after the accident.

Who needs legislative tort “reform” to strip away rights when a conservative judiciary can do it for you?

Perhaps the plaintiff would have had better luck if he had quoted President George W. Bush discussing Vladamir Putin:

I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue

Of course, that didn’t work out so well, so maybe the court was right.

This miserable decision can be found here: Giblin v. Pine Ridge Log Homes, Inc.

(Eric Turkewitz is a personal injury attorney in New York)

July 17th, 2007

Bork’s Attorney, Randy Mastro, Picked For Giuliani’s Justice Advisory Committee

Rudy Giuliani unveiled his “Justice Advisory Committee” today, revealing that Randy Mastro, the Gibson Dunn attorney handling Robert Bork’s slip-and-fall case against the Yale Club, is on the list.

Judge Bork — the former SCOTUS nominee, conservative favorite and tort “reformer” — has been widely ridiculed and lampooned for not just bringing a routine personal injury action for “in excess of $1,000,000” for injuries that appear to be rather limited, but having also asked for punitive damages. The original complaint also included flat-out frivolous claims for attorneys fees and pre-judgment interest, neither of which can be obtained in New York.

So this raises two questions for Giuliani: First, do you want someone on your Justice Advisory Committee that has not only just brought a case with frivolous claims in it, but done so on behalf of a tort “reformer?” Will this reassure conservatives, who are already skittish over Giuliani’s social positions and have concerns about his judicial appointees if elected President?

And second, as I pointed out in Bork Amends Lawsuit, Keeps Claim for Over $1,000,000 Plus Punitive Damages, do you want someone picking judges that failed to draft a simple personal injury complaint, even when extreme caution was needed for a high-profile client? And then failed to correct all the errors in the amended complaint even after a hurricane of bad press? He was not only out of his depth on this case, but more importantly, apparently didn’t seek adequate counsel on how to correct the mistakes. Will that type of throw-caution-to-the-wind conduct appeal to conservatives?

Mastro, by the way, is Giuliani’s former Deputy Mayor. He might have fine political skills, and even have terrific skills in his particular areas of expertise. He might be a great guy to have a beer with. Having never met him, I wouldn’t know. But having laid bare less than stellar legal skills in a routine case with a high-profile client, and having made frivolous claims in court on behalf of that client, is this the guy conservatives will want on a judicial selection committee?