Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/13/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
07/13/09
arguably a more disgusting idea than falling into a sewer.
07/12/09
Personally, I wouldn't represent her. The case defines the "culpable conduct of plaintiff" affirmative defense. From a defense standpoint, this is the kind of defend-to-the-end case that I love. I'd start off with a demand for her cell-phone records for the past two years and portray the girl as a texting fiend.
At the end of the day, there's a good chance that a Staten Island jury would find the girl to be a dopey teen. Just load the jury with people over the age of 55. It's a cartoonish fact pattern and it doesn't engender a lot of sympathy.
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
Second, there is still the defense of "open and obvious condition". There is no duty to warn or barricade against the open and obvious.
Third, there is the girl's own culpable conduct in failing to see what there is to be seen - like an open manhole.
This would be a suit against NYC-DEP - pursuant to Gen. Mun. 50, she has 90 days to file a Notice of Claim. Then there's the 50-h hearing and the 50-i physical examination.
Finally, she's going to have to hope that she gets a somewhat sympathetic judge. The Administrative Judge for Richmond County, Justice Philip Minardo, is notoriously hard-nosed. As a defense attorney, I'd love to have this case in his Part.
This isn't a summary judgment case from a plaintiff's point-of-view. It is highly defensible and from the fact pattern, I'd evaluate a liability split of at least 50/50 with 25% liability on defendants likely and 10% liability on defendants well within the realm of possibility.
Moreover, the injuries are bumps and bruises. A bulging disc is worth about $15,000 in Richmond County. She doesn't have a bulging disc; she has abrasions and contusions. The max settlement value assuming 100% liability is $5,000.
I'd make a pre-suit offer of $1,000, a pre-deposition offer of $2,000, and after that take a no-pay position all the way.
07/12/09
We take 6 people at a time from a panel, do voir dire, and see if there's anyone there we don't like. The panel usually skews older anyway. Plus, after two rounds, we get some bonus strikes.
It's like a psychotic Monopoly game.
07/12/09
07/13/09
But from a legal stand point, WHY was the man hole open BEFORE there was "deliniation" done.
"Deliniation" here being the key word. Deliniation in engineering road work means traffic cones, soft or hard barricades, flashers or etc...
If the DEP guys were "looking" for cones when she fell in. Case is done. She won.
If deliniation is not there to "highlight or call attention" to an item, you might not see it with your peripheral vision... black pavement/black hole you get the picture. Even a driver can drive into it.
07/12/09
07/11/09
07/11/09
Yay, for being a strain on the city's already strained finances! Frivolous lawsuits that you can win, yaaaaay!
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/11/09
This shit is so frivolous. She deserved it.
07/11/09
07/11/09
07/11/09
There's a reason people cover their asses with asinine warnings.
07/11/09
07/12/09