Martin Stone, a truck driver for Ryder Truck Rental had collided with Selwyn A. Vernon’s vehicle. Mr. Stone was driving one of Ryder Truck Rentals trucks. The accident happened on a busy heavy traffic. According to reports, says a witness, Ms. Vernon’s car was in the right lane and the truck driven by Mr. Stone was in the middle lane. The right lane where Ms. Vernon was located was blocked by a double parked vehicle. She then tried to move on the center lane where Mr. Stone’s truck was to get around the double parked car when the traffic light turned red therefore stopping her in between the two lanes. Her car has about halfway in the center lane and half on the right lane. There was also another car in front of Ms. Vernon’s vehicle in the center lane. As soon as the traffic light turned green, Mr. Stone drove his truck forward and struck Ms. Vernon’s car. Ms. Vernon’s car was hit at the rear quarter panel on the driver’s side, says a report. Ms. Vernon and the passenger in the front passenger seat both say that they were not moving when Mr. Stone hit them. The passenger on the rear passenger seat had a different testimony as she said that they had started moving as she sensed movement in the vehicle when the accident occurred. Mr. Stone was not aware that a collision had happened as he did not see Ms. Vernon’s car until after the accident.
Ms. Vernon asked for a summary judgment with regard to the issue of liability. The defendants logically opposed the motion, the defendants being Mr. Stone and Ryder Truck Rental. A rep found out that their claim was there is still a question as to whether Ms. Vernon’s vehicle was moving when the accident happened and if it was the cause of the accident. The court denied the motion of Ms. Vernon. The facts that both parties agreed on was that the traffic light was red and Ms. Vernon said that her vehicle was at least halfway in front of Mr. Stone’s truck. They also agree that the light was green when Mr. Stone drove forward and hit Ms. Vernon’s vehicle. At first glance, the case is already in favor of Ms. Vernon, but the issue if her car was moving and if that movement was a substantial factor in the accident still remains. A rep said, for the court to grant a summary judgment all pertinent questions should already be addressed and eliminated. If there is still an issue raised that needs to be answered or that needs to be examined, then the motion will be denied. There was one dissenting party in the judgment who had said that it could already be determined that the movement in Ms. Vernon’s car was not a substantial factor in the car accident as it was not moving fast when the accident occurred. If the car moved, it was not even able to get to one foot before it was hit. Cases like this are common in The Bronx and Brooklyn.
When it comes to a liability in a car accident, it is sometimes difficult to determine who is liable and who is negligent. There are also cases wherein it is all there and can be decided upon. It does not matter what accident you are a party off you still need a New York Car Accident Lawyer to help you see what can happen. Just like in this case, there was a complication that required them to have another trial.
We at Stephen Bilkis & Associates have Car Accident Lawyers who work out everything to be prepared for any circumstance. May it be a motion not granted or a claim approved by the court. If you have been involved in a car accident and need legal guidance, call us not at 1-800 NY – NY- LAW and we will give you a free consultation. We have offices all over New York and Long Island for your convenience.