Staten Island Injury Law : New York Personal Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Frank Dito : Decker, Decker, Dito & Internicola Law Firm : Traffic Accidents, Transportation Safety

A few months ago I blogged about braking problems car owners were experiencing with their Toyota Prius'. Following the previous recall regarding Toyota floor mats, I wondered if Toyota would do the right thing and order an immediate recall of the Prius or would they make a purely economic decision after the recent "floor mat" recall. Despite the the skeptical public sentiment that the recall was caused by inept driver's and not because a mechanical problem, it has become all too apparent that Toyota was trying to hide a problem with the accelerator pedals in their North American models.

Toyota recently announced voluntary recalls of millions of their cars sold in the United States due to "sticky" gas pedals. After months of blaming the problem on improperly installed floor mats, it has been the gas pedal all along. Since Toyota announced the floor mat recall, there have been more than 60 cases of runaway Toyota's. Its clear that the floor mats was just a way to buy Toyota more time in figuring out how to fix the sticky accelerator.

Despite what people say about trial lawyers, does anyone think that Toyota would undertake such a massive recall without the threat of a lawsuit from a killed or seriously injured victim of a sticky gas pedal? The answer is a clear "NO". All Toyota would have done would be to try and buy more time and blame the problem on driver error, like they did by claiming the floor mats were the problem. Toyota left thousands of Staten Island residents questioning if it is safe to drive their cars. They tried to blame you for the unintended acceleration and only after the true problem came to light did Toyota take responsibility. As the ever decreasing chances of the public health care option passing dwindle, the call for tort reform remains strong. Can we really afford to allow such massive corporations as Toyota with a way out that amounts to a free pass? All tort reform will do is allow corporations to put profit over safety. Such a course cannot be followed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In another attempt to try and prevent the hundreds of traffic deaths that occur yearly in the 5 boroughs, the City of New York is promoting the use of speed cameras in addition to the proliferation of red light cameras. Mayor Bloomberg has proposed the use of speed cameras throughout the City as a cheaper alternative to having more police officers out on the streets. You have to ask yourself, is the sudden suggestion of speed cameras based upon pedestrian safety or the need for revenue in the ongoing recession? Governor Patterson has already suggested speed cameras to help generate revenue to fill the budget shortfall.

Last year, there were 21 traffic deaths on Staten Island, up from the 18 that happened here last year. The New York City Department of Transportation has made it a goal to halve the number of pedestrian deaths in New York by 2030. Why will it need to take 20 years to cut that number in half? DOT will add many aggressive programs, including anti-drunk driving, anti-speeding campaigns and better engineered streets. I think we are headed in the wrong direction.

I question whether these new cameras will bring about the necessary changes as drivers are more than happy to pay a fine without adding any points on your license. I don't believe that the red light cameras have changed anything. In fact, I think they cause more accidents because people are forced to stop short when they approach a red-light camera equipped intersection and the light is turning yellow. Inevitably, a rear end collision occurs because the car behind is usually speeding up to make the light. The cameras don't change the fundamental problem which is driver attitude. Driver's need to have their behavior changed, not just at intersections where they know a red light or speed camera is installed. Only through real enforcement of our traffic laws and real penalties for drivers will any real change occur.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The family of Joseph Cesario, who was killed crossing Richmond Avenue on his way to work, has started a lawsuit against the alleged drunk driver that hit him, the Staten Island Advance is reporting. Mr. Cesario was killed on June 1, 2008 while crossing Richmond Avenue to catch a bus for work. He was hit by a car driven by Andrew Douglas, who was purportedly drunk at the time of the accident. Although a grand jury declined to indict Mr. Douglas on criminal charges, he still must answer to a civil jury. His brother, Frank Cesario, filed suit last week, according to his Long Island-based attorney,  Stephen Kressel.

The burden of proof between a criminal case and a civil case is vastly different. In a criminal case, the evidence against the purported wrongdoer must "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is a very high standard which, to the public, sometimes makes it seem that guilty people go free. The burden in a civil trial is much lower, known as "a preponderance of the evidence." Simply put, the "scales of justice" have to tip, ever so lightly, in favor of one party or the other. The higher burden of proof in a criminal case ensures that our freedoms are protected as we would rather have 10 guilty escape than have one innocent suffer. 

Despite a grand jury refusing to indict Mr. Douglas, the facts of the accident don't change: Joseph Cesario was hit and killed by Mr. Douglas', accidentally, when he was just crossing the street on his way to work. Mr. Douglas stayed at the scene of the accident and witnesses even said that Mr. Douglas had the right of way and wasn't swerving or driving aggressively. However, what I can't understand are the all too frequent reports of Staten Island pedestrians being struck and killed by cars. In this instance, it doesn't seem to be a question that Mr. Douglas was drinking. It seems that the criminal case was for DWI, which requires a blood alcohol level of 0.08 in New York. Apparently, Mr. Douglas was below that threshold  but what the question is, did the alcohol slow down his reflexes enough that he couldn't avoid the accident? People need to think of the consequences when drinking and driving, even if your blood alcohol level doesn't rise to the legal limit.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Once again Staten Island residents are witness to tragedy as a 23-year old's life was tragically cut short. My condolences go out to the family of Daniel Kelley. Their pain is unimaginable. As a father of 2 young children, I know it's my wish to see my children grow up and to eventually have children of their own. Whether its a young child or a young adult, the loss is still devastating. 

In the last few weeks, Staten Island residents have seemingly been the target of reckless drivers. From the tragic deaths of Peter and Lilian Sabados, to Arthur Katz being struck by an ambulette to Janine Brawer. The Sabados' were simply trying to cross the street to attend church. Ms. Brawer was coming home from school. Mr. Kelley was out for a jog with his girlfriend. The prevalence of irresponsible and dangerous drivers on Staten Island is alarming.

Mr. Kelley was struck by a drug-impaired driver on Hylan Boulevard, what I consider to be the most dangerous street on Staten Island, more akin to a highway. What does it say about a person who gets behind the wheel of a car while on drugs? What about a driver who flees the scene of an accident and reports his van stolen, all the while driving with a suspended license? These drivers are all too prevalent on Staten Island streets.

Every resident should be able to feel safe on our roads; that is our entitlement, our right. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and maybe we should start to take that privilege away from reckless drivers. The laws and rules in place now obviously don't deter people from driving reckless, as they amount to monetary fines and an accumulation of points on your license. We need to suspend reckless driver's licenses much more quickly. Let's be honest; sometimes, going through a red light is a mistake. Maybe you were distracted or maybe you thought you had more time. People who are running red lights 3 or 4 times are doing it intentionally. They obviously don't care about the rules and choose not to pay attention to them. Take their license away and make them earn it back by taking the driving test all over again. Until we get serious with our penalties for reckless driving, we will never rid Staten Island's streets of them.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Local residents and the Staten Island Advance have brought to the attention of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) the existence of a dangerous ice slick at the intersection of Wave and Sands Streets in Stapleton. The ice slick covers almost the entire intersection and, according to residents, has been there for almost two weeks. Although the DEP has been out there on numerous occasions, the ice sheet has not dissipated and appears to be caused by some sort of water main leak. They plan to start excavating tomorrow to repair the leak. DEP has notified the New York City Department of Sanitation of the ice sheet and asked that salt trucks visit the site to spread salt.

Although the weather has been absolutely frigid over the past two weeks, the City still needs to act and to act quickly. I know of too many instances where the City has failed to act quickly in fixing a dangerous situation. The most common is the failure to replace a stop sign that has come down, either because of an accident or some other disaster. When a stop sign is knocked down, you would think that a traffic cop would be stationed at the intersection until an emergency crew from the Department of Transportation could get out there and repair the sign. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

I have many unfortunate clients who were seriously injured because a stop sign was knocked down and not put back up until days later. Even a temporary sign on a portable stand would return traffic control back to the intersection. The great bureaucracy that is the City of New York even manages to avoid liability for not getting the sign back up in time. Many times, EMS workers who were repeatedly called back to the scene of the downed stop sign because other accidents have happened, have managed to temporarily put the stop sign back up until permanent repairs have been made.

Much like the ice sheet in Stapleton, it's clear that it takes the City much too long to the fix dangers Staten Island resident's face daily. The City needs to have a "quick reaction" team ready to attend to these serious dangers at a moments notice, whether its traffic control, the placement of temporary street signs, or even spreading rock salt. The challenge faced by Staten Island drivers from other drivers while commuting to work is enough. We should all expect that the roads are free of hidden dangers. Please drive carefully.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It’s undisputed that seat belts save lives and prevent serious injuries in car crashes. New York State requires that adults riding in the front seat wear seatbelts and children be in booster seats or child safety seats. Every child between the ages of 8 and 16 years of age must be restrained, no matter where they are sitting in the car. Much confusion exists as to what type of seat your child needs to be restrained in and until what age. Child safety seats are the most important piece of safety equipment that you have in your car. After all, they protect your greatest assets – your children. Never let your child ride in a car without being properly restrained. It’s the law. Following these rules will reduce the risk of your child being severely injured in a car accident in case you are ever involved in one. 

• Infants - you can place an infant in either an infant seat or a rear-facing convertible seat until they are at least a year old and weigh at least 20 lbs.
• Toddlers/Preschool age children - a child this age should be placed in either a rear-facing or forward-facing convertible car seat.  Children should stay in the convertible seat in its rear-facing position for as long as possible but after they are over a year old and over 20 lbs you have the option of turning the convertible car seat to face forward.
• School age children - starting at the age of 4 children who have outgrown their forward facing car seats and weigh more than 40 lbs can be put in a booster seat.  They must continue to use a booster seat until they are 8 years of age and are at least 4'9" in height or weigh 100 pounds. 
• Older children - once your child is old enough and fills the height and weight requirements to ride in the car without a booster seat they should continue to ride in the back seat of the car with a seat belt on until they are 13 years old. 

Despite the recommendations, you may be surprised to learn that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that as many as 80% of child safety seats are improperly installed – that’s 8 in 10 seats! Take the time to read the instruction manual that came with the seat as well as your vehicle’s owner’s manual to familiarize yourself with proper installation.

Newer cars use terms like LATCH and Top Tether. LATCH is a standardized installation system for your child’s safety seat. LATCH stands for Lower Anchors and Tethers for CHildren.  LATCH includes two lower anchor attachments and a top tether.  Most people commonly refer to LATCH as the pair of fixed lower anchors built into the crack between the seat back and seat cushion.  These attachment points are specifically designed for child safety seat installation.  When used, the vehicle’s seatbelts are no longer necessary to install the child safety seat.  The idea is to make it easier to install child safety seats safely, and to make installation universal among child safety seats and vehicles and eliminate the variables involved in installing car safety seats with common seatbelts. LATCH can be found on infant seat bases, rear-facing, front-facing and combination booster seats that have an internal harness.  It requires a specific LATCH belt with two locking clips on the side. Some LATCH clips require that they be specifically installed on the driver’s side of the car so its important that you become familiar with your child’s safety seat.

A top tether (or top strap) is the supplemental attachment strap on the top of forward facing car seats but is not frequently used by consumers.  Top tethers can be used with either the seat belt or with the LATCH anchors. A top tether is an adjustable strap that connects the top of the child safety seat to an anchor point mounted in the vehicle behind the child safety seat, usually the shelf below the rear window or on the floor of the cargo area in many SUV’s.  The Top Tether is designed to prevent the forward movement of the top of a forward-facing child safety seat in a frontal crash.  This reduces the head movement of the child, and can reduce the chances of a severe injury. 

If you are still unsure if your child’s safety seat is properly installed, take the time to go to a local safety seat inspection location to have a professional check your child safety seat’s installation.  The safety check only takes about 15 minutes and best of all, its free.  To locate a safety seat inspection station you can enter your zip code or you can call 1-866-SEAT-CHECK.  Following these rules will reduce the risk of your child being severely injured in a car accident in case you are ever involved in one.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link