Personal Injury Law Firm in New York

AREAS OF PRACTICE

Recent New York Accident Injury Law Cases Ask Our Law Firm a Question

FREE CASE REVIEW

No Cost • No Obligation

* First Name

* Last Name

* Email

* Phone

() -

Street Address

Apartment

City

State

Zip Code

Date of Birth

Best method and time to contact you:

Describe your case:

Describe your case:

Date of Incident

I agree to the Terms & Conditions

I want to join the mailing list

* Type the verification code
in the box below:


RECENT NOTEWORTHY CASES | Back to List of Cases

 

Car crash produced knee injury, plaintiff alleged

2/7/2008
Antonia Tapper v. John D Bascombe & PJ Mechanical Corp, No. 30986/05

Verdict: $2,343,000

Court: Kings Supreme, NY

Judge: Lawrence Knipel

Plaintiff Attorney(s):
Guy Gruenberg, Gruenberg & Kelly, PC, Ronkonkoma, NY

Defense Attorney(s):
David R. Beyda, Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff, New York, NY

Facts & Allegations:
On July 16, 2005, plaintiff Antonia Tapper, 35, a hotel’s housekeeping manager, was driving in Brooklyn. While she was near the intersection of Flatbush and Lafayette avenues, her vehicle was struck by a trailing vehicle that was being driven by John Bascombe. Tapper claimed that she sustained an injury of one knee.

Tapper sued Bascombe and the owner of his vehicle, PJ Mechanical Corp. She alleged that Bascombe was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that PJ Mechanical was vicariously liable for Bascombe’s actions.

Tapper’s counsel moved for pretrial summary judgment of liability, and the motion was granted. The trial addressed damages.

Injuries/Damages:
Tapper claimed that she sustained a tear of her right knee’s meniscus. The injury was repaired via arthroscopic surgery. She contended that she later developed problems with her left knee as a result of the extra weight put on it because of the right knee’s injury. She developed arthritic conditions of both legs and has restricted range of motion in her legs and knees. She claimed that she wears braces on her legs and walks with the aid of a cane. It is unknown if she will ever be able to walk without assistance.

Tapper contended that her disabilities prevent her resumption of work. She sought recovery of her past and future lost earnings and damages for her past and future pain and suffering.

Defense counsel contended that the collision produced a merely minor impact that could not have caused the injury that Tapper claimed to have sustained. Thus, he argued that Tapper did not sustain a serious injury, as defined by the no-fault law, Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Result:
The jury found that Tapper’s damages totaled $2,343,000.