Explore the Le Roy area


leroynyonline.com keyword stats



Most current Google search phrases:

LeRoy NY  
Most current MSN search phrases:

broadway automobile
west chester county new york county records
long island new york clerk of courts hudson
factors headline
rochester new york puppies promotions
dubai travelling
northern  

Persistent Legal Work Pays Off - Injury In An Accident Whos held Liable?

Persistent Legal Work Pays Off - Injury In Andefendants. In order to overcome this, we
Accident  Whos  held  Liable?had to rely on a theory of law called the
relation back doctrine. This legal doctrine
Here is an example of how extra effort andholds, in part, that if a party who is not
attention to detail can substantially raisenamed in the lawsuit is closely related to
the  value  of  a  personal  injury  case.the parties that are and, that party is aware
of the claims and, that party knows it should
Taxi owners in New York consistently createhave been named, in the first place, it can
individual corporations for each taxibe added to the lawsuit, even if the statute
medallion/taxicab, even if they own dozens.of limitations has run out. Here, we argued
This case involved a very sophisticatedthat not only were those elements met but,
businessman who owned approximately a dozenthat if it weren't for the sneaky way the
taxi cab companies, each of which operated ascompanies were set up, we would have known
part of a larger enterprise but, appeared tothey  were viable defendants from the outset.
the public to be individual operations. At
the time I took over the case, it appearedThe second problem was that even after we
that our client, who had lost his leg fromnamed all these different companies it was
the knee down as a result of the accident,unclear to what extent each one would be
would be limited to the minimal (twenty fiveresponsible for our client's injuries and, it
thousand dollar) policy on the car that hitwas also unclear how much insurance coverage
him. Fortunately, after some hard work andthey would have to satisfy his claims. To
effective motion practice we were able tocomplicate matters, several of the companies
negotiate a settlement of close to onehad been dissolved and, it was unclear what,
million dollars, still less than what theif any assets any of them actually owned.
injury would have been worth in a clearHere  we  got  lucky.
liability case but, almost forty times what
he  stood  to  get  before the work was done.In the time between the accident and the
addition of these other parties to the
The cornerstone of the revised strategy aroselawsuit, the owner of the companies had sold
at the defendant's deposition. The witness,all of them, lock, stock and barrel, to Coach
a dispatcher, testified that she was employedTransportation, the giant Canadian bus
by the same company that owned the cab but,company. While this still left open the
when I pressed her to produce a pay stub,issue of whether we could actually prove
which she had in her pocket, we found out sheCoach was liable, it eliminated the questions
was actually employed by one of the otherabout whether there would be any money
companies owned by the same man. We thenavailable at the end of the day to compensate
learned that the dispatch office, garage,our  client.
book keeping staff, etc., were all shared
among  the  various  companies.Ultimately, after some further discovery,
including a long, intense deposition of the
My research turned up a New York Stateformer owner that revolved mainly around the
Supreme Court case from a few years earliermaze of corporations he had created and the
that dealt favorably (for our purposes) withway they worked together, we settled for
a similar situation. The court in that caseclose  to  a  million  dollars.
held that when a group of companies operates
as a single entity but, presents itself asAs I noted above, this was a discount for a
discrete corporations, it constitutes abelow the knee amputation, even in a
"fraud upon the public" which can beconservative venue like Nassau County but,
redressed by holding all the companies andeven though we won on some important
maybe even the principals liable, instead ofprocedural issues that allowed us to add the
limiting the injured party's right toother companies and, ultimately Coach, as
recovery to just the one, small corporationdefendants, there was a serious question as
with no assets and minimal insuranceto whether, when push came to shove, the case
coverage. The theory was applicable but,could actually be proven against them. If it
there  were  several  obstacles  to overcome.couldn't, our client would be stuck with the
same twenty five thousand dollars that was on
The first problem was that the statute ofthe table from the get go. In the end, he
limitations had long since run out on themade the right decision. He would have been
case, meaning that it was too late to start ataking too big a risk by taking the case to
new lawsuit naming the other corporations astrial.



1 A B C 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103