When we all drive, we assume that any New York accident we have will be caused by the other person. However, what have courts interpreted as the cause of motorcycle accidents throughout the North East?
Our experienced New York injury attorneys understand the many questions you may have, and we are here to help guide you in your case.
In Maine recently, the court dealt with a question of causation in McIlroy v. Gibson’s Apple Orchard. The issue was whether the owner of a large sign located close to the road, could be held liable for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident.
This case arose where McIlroy (plaintiff) was on his motorcycle passing through an intersection. He saw a vehicle being driven by Charlotte Small (Small) maneuver into his lane. It is undisputed that Small had the right of way. Upon seeing this maneuver, the plaintiff thought that Small had not seen him because of a large sign that was close to the road. Plaintiff swerved his motorcycle causing him to lose control causing him to sustain serious injuries.
Gibson’s Apple Orchard (defendant) had placed an eight-foot square sign as an advertisement on the side of the road near the intersection. This sign was so large that it caused the view of the road to be obstructed. Small testified in his deposition that he had seen the plaintiff but that he did maneuver because of the sign in order to see the rest of the road.
Plaintiff sued the defendant claiming that the defendant had been negligent in the placing of the sign, and that this negligence had caused his motorcycle accident.
In order to prove a case for negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the four elements of negligence. These elements are: the defendant had a specific duty of care; this duty of care was breached by the defendant; the breach of duty by the defendant was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries; and that there were actual damages to the plaintiff. To prove this type of case, the plaintiff only has to prove that it is more likely than not that the defendant is guilty of negligence.
Causation is usually the most complicated part of a personal injury lawsuit. Not only does the plaintiff have to prove that the defendants’ breach of duty was the actual cause of the plaintiff’s injuries; the plaintiff also has to prove that the defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of their injuries. To be liable for negligence, the defendant needs only to have acted recklessly or carelessly, not necessarily intentionally.
In application to the facts of this case, the plaintiff had to show that not only was the defendant’s placement of the sign the cause of his injuries but that the defendant could have foreseen that someone on a motorcycle could be involved in an accident because of the sign.
As support of the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant’s placement of the sign was the direct cause of his injuries; the plaintiff argued that the size and location of the sign obstructed driver’s view of the road. And because of this obstruction it could be reasonably foreseeable to the defendant of the possibility of an accident when they placed the sign.
This court found that where there is a potential question for the jury and where the jury could find it to be a reasonable inference from the facts that the defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff’s injuries, the case must be remanded to the lower court to decide the question of liability. Basically, plaintiff’s arguments were found to be possible and the court found that the deciphering of the case facts should be done by a reasonable jury.
Thus, this case illustrates that were there is a plausible argument made that leads to possible inferences, a jury must hear the case.
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.
