As we travel hectically though our days, we often overlook the fact that different parties are responsible for the safety of our roads. In order to prevent New York personal injuries, states and cities have a duty to keep the roads safe and to warn the public of dangers on their roads.
The court in Himmelsetin v. Town of Windsor et al. discusses municipal and state liability where a plaintiff suffers injuries because of a defect in the road. When you are injured because of the fault of someone else, you need an experienced New York accident attorney to help you identify the responsible party and get the award you deserve.
This case was a highway defect claim that addressed the question of whether a town can be held liable for injuries suffered as a result of defects in the state road. The court found that the plaintiff pursued his claim against the wrong party.
Himmelstein (“Plaintiff”) was riding his bicycle on a town road which had a heavy flow of traffic. Because of this traffic, plaintiff was forced to use the breakdown lane of the road between the fog line and the curb. On the side of the road the town’s police department had a radar trailer stationed. Plaintiff collided with this radar trailer and suffered various personal injuries as well as economic damages.
Plaintiff sued the town and department of transportation employees claiming that the town had breached its statutory duty of care when it allowed this radar trailer to be stationed on the side of the road. Additionally, plaintiff alleged that the town and the town’s agents were guilty of negligence and in the alternative, nuisance.
Nuisance is a legal principal derived from English common law which has been adopted in the U.S. This area of law addresses an individual’s rights to be free from anything that causes significant intrusion on an individual’s life by causing injury of discomfort. There are two types of nuisance recognized: private nuisance and public nuisance. In order for the nuisance to qualify as a private nuisance, courts have held that the person affected must have an interest in the property where the intrusion is occurring. For example, the victim would be the owner of property or be leasing the property. With every legal interest in land comes the right of quiet enjoyment of that land. If there is anything done that interferes with this right of quiet enjoyment, it is considered to be the civil wrong of nuisance.
Conversely, public nuisance is used to describe actions or omissions that cause damage or inconvenience to the public. This principal of public nuisance includes any interference with public health, safety, peace or convenience.
In this case plaintiff argued that the town and its employees had failed to warn the public of the presence of the radar trailer and because of this failure to warn, the plaintiff suffered injuries. The plaintiff also argued that because his injuries were the result of a highway defect which was created by the town, the town should be held liable.
The town argued that because the road the plaintiff was traveling on was a state highway, the town had no duty to warn or keep the road in question safe. Because the town had no duty here, they argued that they are not the proper party to be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.
The police office radar trailer was in, upon or near the road causing an obstruction or hindrance to the purpose of traveling on the road. Because of the placement of the radar trailer, the court looked to governing statute that states that: the town is liable for defects which are defined as any obstruction that creates a condition that renders a town road unsafe. However, the issue in this case became whether the town can be held liable for any defects to a state highway.
The court found that the town could not be held liable in nuisance because the town was not responsible for maintaining the safety of a state highway. Furthermore, the court found that the state could not be held liable because of the “sole proximate cause doctrine.” This doctrine specifies that in order for a state or municipality to be held liable for plaintiff’s injuries, the road defect must be the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Because of this doctrine, the state cannot be held liable where the injuries were the result of a road defect and the negligence of a third party.
But the court does clarify that this doctrine does not prevent the plaintiff from suing the state for its alleged failure to warn of the dangers associated with the obstruction in the road.
This case illustrates the complexities of the law and how important it is to have an experienced New York personal injury attorney.
If you have been injured contact New York injury attorneys at Law Offices of Nicholas Rose, PLLC to schedule a free appointment. Call 718-261-0546.
Additional Resources:
Himmelstein v. Town of Windsor et al., No. SC 18455 (Conn. Apr. 3, 2012).
