FORKLIFT BACKS INTO ACCIDENT VICTIM; HE'S GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF LIABILITY

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York

Case: Becci v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc.

Date: Oct. 25, 2011

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Queens; Queens injury attorney)

Comment: A forklift in a warehouser backed into the plaintiff/accident victim. Summary judgment (on liability) granted in the plaintiff's favor, the appeals court did not buy the defense attempt to stick some fault (comparative fault) on the injured accident victim.

************************************************

RELATED POSTS:

SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED IN LABOR LAW CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF DIDN'T KNOW WHERE FALLING BUCKET CAME FROM (Posted By Brooklyn injury attorney Gary E. Rosenberg on Oct 26, 2011)

************************************************

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated October 19, 2010, which granted the plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In an order dated November 5, 2009, the Supreme Court denied, as premature, the plaintiff's initial motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, without prejudice to renewal. In support of his renewed motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff demonstrated that he was walking in a warehouse while the defendant Shing Yung Tung, who was employed by the defendant Worldwide Flight Services, Inc., was operating a forklift in reverse. The forklift struck the plaintiff in the back, allegedly causing injuries. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff further demonstrated, prima facie, that he exercised due care while walking in the warehouse. This proof was sufficient to establish the plaintiff's prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, including his freedom from comparative fault (see Lopez v. WS Distrib., Inc., 34 A.D.3d 759, 825 N.Y.S.2d 516; see also Martinez v. Kreychmar, 84 A.D.3d 1037, 923 N.Y.S.2d 648; Torres v. American Bldg. Maintenance Co. of NY, 51 A.D.3d 905, 858 N.Y.S.2d 360). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The evidence submitted in connection with the plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability does not support the defendants' speculative assertions of comparative fault on the part of the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Categories