NYC is on a mission to plant a million trees, and is halfway to that goal.  However, they have at the same time slashed the funding for tree pruning and inspection.  Over the past few years the budget to prune trees has shrunk from $4.7 million to $1.75 million, and the frequency between tree inspections by experts has increased from 7 years to 15 years.  Most trees outside of Central Park are only checked by park workers with no tree inspection experience or training, and usually only report that limbs have already fallen or limbs or trees that are clearly dead.  One park worker admitted that “We are a complaint-generated organization. So, we only inspect any complaints that come in.” 

An owner of land with a tree on it, including the City of New York,  is responsible for maintenance of that tree and can be held liable for damages caused by falling limbs where the owner has actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.  Thus, a property owner can be held liable for a falling tree or limb if they are aware of its dangerous condition, or if they would have been aware had they made a proper inspection of the tree.  Evidence of a tree’s dangerous condition can be seen by the existence of cavities, dead branches, signs of fungus, signs of decay, or evidence of insect infestation, among other conditions.

Because of the weight of larger branches, and the distance they may fall while travelling, a falling branch or tree can do serious harm.  One case discussed in the New York Times Article involves an accident in July 2007 when a tree limb fell on a young woman walking her dog in a NYC Park, causing serious injuries.  The tree upon subsequent inspection showed obvious signs of decay or inspection, but the City Park workers never properly inspected the tree before the accident.  The City sought to dismiss the case, but in December 2011 an Appellate Court denied the motion.  After losing the motion, the City settled the case for $4 Million.

If you or someone you know are injured in an accident from a falling tree or tree limb you should contact a lawyer to discuss your rights.  Zalman Schnurman & Miner is an experience personal injury law firm that handles all types of injury cases.  Consultations are always free, and all cases are handled on a contingency fee basis. Call 1-800-LAWLINE (1-800-529-5463) for a free consultation concerning personal injury matters.

One of the biggest dangers is the traffic light changing color while the pedestrian is still crossing.  Because of the wideness of these streets, a pedestrian who starts out with a green light or a walk sign often is unable to make it fully across the street before the light turns red.  Vehicles seeing a green light for themselves will then often barrel ahead without regard, or perhaps not seeing, pedestrians.  

To combat this know problem Nassau County recently announced that on Hempstead Turnpike they have been increasing the times allotted for crossing the street at many intersections, to allow pedestrians a greater chance of crossing before the light changes.

Another major problem is cars which are turning at an intersections and not yielding to pedestrians.  It is bad enough that cars turning with green lights often due not yield, but motorists who are turning right on red lights are rarely even coming to a stop before making their turn.

If it is dangerous to cross at the intersection, it is even more dangerous to cross mid-block.  Due to the long distances between crosswalks on some major roads some pedestrians decide to cross mid-block.  Because a motorist might not expect to encounter a pedestrian mid-block, and may be going at full speed, a mid-block crossing is dangerous.  A Nassau County study revealed that more than 59% of pedestrian fatalities came from pedestrians crossing in the middle of the block.

A pedestrian crossing in the crosswalk with the light has the right of way. Whereas, in the middle of the block the car has a right of way.  However, a motorist has a duty to see what their is to be seen, and avoid striking pedestrians, regardless of who has the right of way.

To be as safe as possible always cross at the intersection with the light.  If there is a button to push for the walk sign, make sure you push it, such may increase the time for the traffic light in your favor, giving you more time to safely cross.  Never assume that a motorist sees you, if possible try and make eye contact so you know they saw you. 

A collision between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian can be fatal for pedestrian.  Be careful out there.

If you are struck by a car, truck, or other motor vehicle, you should contact a lawyer who is experienced in handling motor vehicle cases, including pedestrian accidents.  

Zalman Schnurman & Miner is a New York law firm who is experienced in handling injury cases involving pedestrians struck by cars, trucks and other motor vehicles. For a free consultation call 1-800-LAWLINE (1-800-549-5463).

7 Most Tragic Roller Coaster Calamities

March 21, 2012

Two recent Appellate Division cases, one of which quotes my NY Law Journal Article, highlights the difficulty animals victims have in recovering compensation for their injuries.

In Hastings v. Sauve the plaintiff was severely injured when her car struck a cow which had wandered into the roadway.  The court ruled that no recovery could be had since there was no history of the cow previously wandering into the road. The court though was not happy with the result.

The need to maintain control over such a large animal is obvious, and the risk that exists if it is allowed to roam unattended onto a public street is self-evident and not created because the animal has a vicious or abnormal propensity. Here, plaintiff was injured not because the cow was vicious or abnormal, but because defendants allegedly failed to keep it confined on farm property and, instead, allowed it to wander unattended onto the adjacent highway in the middle of the night, causing this accident. The existence of any abnormal or vicious propensity played no role in this accident, yet, under the law as it now exists, defendants’ legal responsibility for what happened is totally dependent upon it. For this reason, we believe in this limited circumstance, traditional rules of negligence should apply to determine the legal responsibility of the animal’s owner for damages it may have caused. However, it is not for this Court to alter this rule and, while it is in place, we are obligated to enforce it.

In Bloomer v. Shauger, the same court again denied relief to the plaintiff.  In Bloomer, the defendant owned two horses Topper & Whiskey, who were life long companions, but Topper died. The surviving horse, Whiskey, became agitated when in full view Topper was laid to rest in a grave.  Robert Bloomer a neighbor tried to calm Whiskey by petting her, which seemed to calm the horse down.  The owner, Shauger, then approached Whiskey with a lead line to remove him from the scene, but Whiskey who was known to dislike the lead line and walk away in the past upon seeing one, reared up this time at its site.  Bloomer’s finger was severely injured when it finger got caught in the harness when Whiskey reacted to seeing the lead line.  The court dismissed the case (in a 4 to 1 decision) stating that Whiskey’s known aversion to the lead line did not evince a vicious propensity, since in the past she would just walk away. 

One dissenting  Justice, Elizabeth Garry, would have not dismissed the case arguing that the horse’s propensity to resist the lead line showed a known aggressive propensity. In her dissent Justice Garry quoted my law journal article stating:

New York is apparently “the only state in the nation that rejects the rule set forth in the Restatement [Second] of Torts” regarding an owner’s negligence as a ground for liability arising from the dangerous acts of animals (Miner, Outside Counsel, When Animals Attack in New York, NYLJ, Feb. 28, 2012, at 4, col 1; see Bard v. Jahnke, 6 NY3d 592, 597-599 [2006]). As we are thus applying an extremely restrictive rule, we should not do so in an extremely restrictive manner. Accordingly, I would reverse that part of the order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and allow the matter to proceed for determination of the contested factual issues.

In an April 16, 2012 article  John Caher of the New York Law Journal quoted my earlier article as follows:

Marc Miner, principal attorney at Zalman Schnurman & Miner, in a recent Law Journal column (NYLJ, “When Animals Attack in New York,” Outside Counsel, Feb. 28, 2012), said it is of no relevance that an owner neglected to close a gate or properly secure an animal.

“In the past year, victims of animal attacks have had a particularly hard time finding relief through the courts,” Miner wrote, citing one Court of Appeals decision, two by the Fourth Department and one by the Third Department.

In a follow up article and interview, with John Caher of the Law Journal. I was quoted as follows:

“It is obviously very, very bad law for injured parties,” Miner said. “It is a very strict rule that makes it very hard to recover. It is the strictest rule in the country.”

In order to prevent the continued injustice of animal owners not being held responsible for their negligent actions, New York’s Court of Appeals will have to overrule its own recent rulings, or the legislature will have to enact laws to better protect the safety of citizens of the State who due to know fault of their own are injured through the negligence of others.  Until such happens many people who are injured by animals in New York, as a result of the owner’s negligence, will go uncompensated for their injuries.

If you are injured by an animal you should consult an attorney about your rights.  While, the law in New York is burdensome, recovery can be had under the proper set of facts.  A New York lawyer who handles dog bite cases and other cases in which injuries were caused by animals will be able to help you obtain compensation where possible.

Zalman Schnurman & Miner are New York Lawyers who handle all personal injury actions including cases where people are injured by dogs and other animals.  For a free consultation call 1-800-LAWLINE (1-800-529-5463) or submit your inquiry here.

When the elevator door opens and the floor of the elevator, and the floor of the hallway or lobby, are not aligned, there is a mis-level.  A mis-leveled elevator is particularly dangerous because the condition is unexpected and not at eye level.  

When the elevator floor is higher than the floor outside the elevator, the condition will cause a pedestrian exiting the elevator to mis-step and fall.  A person entering the elevator when it is higher than the hallway will be caused to trip and fall into the elevator.

The reverse is true for a when the elevator door opens with the floor of the elevator below the hallway or lobby floor.  In this situation the person exiting the elevator is likely to trip, and the person entering the elevator is likely to miss the step and fall.

Because the fall to the ground is so unexpected it can often result in serious injuries.

The causes for an elevator to mis-level vary with the age and type of the elevator.  Older elevators, such as the type usually found in New York City apartment building built from 1930 through 1960 are usually AC brake controlled.

Elevators which were built after 1960 may use DC variable voltage and dynamic braking to bring the car to a stop.  The other type of elevator sytem is Hydraulic.    

It is important to show that those responsible for maintaining the elevator had notice of the problem.  Notice can be proven by work service tickets, prior complaints, a history of mis-leveling, the issuance of violations, correspondence, or a history of prior accidents. 

However, even if there is no notice of the condition, a case may be proven under the theory of Res Ipsa Loquitor, which is Latin for “The thing speaks for itself”.  Under this theory, a jury may find that the defendants must be negligent because the mis-leveling would not occur absence negligence in the maintenance and/or repair of the elevator. 

If you are injured due to a mis-level elevator it is important to consult with an attorney to learn about your rights.  Zalman Schnurman & Miner is a personal injury law firm that handles elevator accident cases.  We work with elevator experts who will inspect the elevators and review the maintenance and repair records for the elevator to determine the cause of the dangerous conditions and determine who is responsible for the incident.

The New York Personal Injury Lawyers of Zalman Schnurman & Miner can be reached at 1-800-LAWLINE (1-800-529-5463).  Consultations are always free.  All cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, so that there are no attorney fees unless there is a recovery. For more information about Zalman Schnurman & Miner click website.  To contact us by e-mail click contact.

A lawyer should be consulted if you have legal questions.  The information provided here is for informational purposes only.

Riding a bus can be dangerous.  There are no seat belts.  Buses often start moving before a passenger is able to sit down, and sometimes there are no available seats.  A sudden movement can cause a passenger to be thrown to the floor, strike a metal pole, or be thrown into other passengers.

Common injuries from bus accidents include broken or fractured bones, head injuries, traumatic brain injuries, or back and neck injuries.

Many bus accidents are caused by collisions between the bus and other vehicles (cars, taxi cabs, trucks, etc.) or other objects (poles, parked vehicles, curbs, etc.).  Other bus accidents are caused by the movement of the bus alone, without contact with another vehicle.  Such scenarios include short stops and sudden turns.

In order to have a viable claim against a bus driver or bus company, including the New York City Transit Authority or the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, where the passenger was injured solely as a result of a sudden stop, jerk or movement the passenger must be able to show:

“objective evidence that the force of the stop sufficient to establish an inference that the stop was extraordinary and violent, of a different class than the jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel and, therefore, attributable to the negligence of defendant”

 A passenger may be able to show that the movement of the bus was extraordinary or violent by the fact that the bus was moving at an excessive rate of speed, or by presenting objective evidence that one or more passengers were caused to fall, be “thrown”, “launched” or “propelled” or otherwise similarly dislodged from their previous position.

In summary in order for a bus passenger to bring a viable claim for injuries as a result of a buses sudden movement, which does not result in contact with another object, the passenger must show that the movement was extraordinary and violent, and not just a normal jerk or lurch.

If you are injured on a bus, or in an accident involving a bus, you should immediately contact an experienced attorney who handles such matters.  The attorneys at Zalman Schnurman & Miner (1-800-LAWLINE) are personal injury attorneys who are experienced in handling all type of injury cases including bus accident cases.

Zalman Schnurman & Miner handles all personal injury cases on a contingent fee, so there are no attorney’s fees to the client unless there is a recovery.

Call 1-800-LAWLINE (1-800-529-5463) for a free consultation regarding your bus accident case or other personal injury matters or visit www.1800LAWLINE.COM

The information provided herein is for informational purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice.  To obtain legal advice you should consult with an attorney.

Common dangerous tripping hazards, traps and snares that can be found in jetways are gaps, unmarked steps, and raised surfaces.  The most likely location of gaps and unmarked height differences are usually at either end of the jetway, or between connecting parts of the jet way.   Other dangers may include objects left in the jetway which are not at eye level (e.g. strollers or luggage) and which are present without warning.

These tripping hazards at airports can result in serious injuries.

If you are injured you should immediately report the problem to the airline personnel present and let them know what caused the fall.

There are various potential entities responsible for up-keeping the jetway in a safe condition, any of which may be responsible for your injuries depending on the specific fact pattern.  In the New York metropolitan area the airports are owned by the Port Authority of NY and NJ.  The Port Authority must be sued within 12 months of the occurrence, and a Proof of Claim must be filed with the Port Authority at least 60 days before a lawsuit can be filed.  The Port Authority usually leases the terminals to individual airlines.  The airlines likely are the ones who control the jet-way for their use, though they may contract the work out to others.

Different statute of limitations may apply depending on which state the accident happenned in.  Further if the accident happened in a jetway while boarding or debarking an international flight, international treaty rules will apply with separate litigation rules.

If you are injured in an airport, in an airport jetway, or while otherwise boarding, debarking, or on an airplane you should consult an attorney about your legal rights.

Zalman Schnurman & Miner is a law firm which represents people injured on airplanes, while boarding and debarking planes, and in other situations.  Call us at 1-800-LAWLINE (1-800-529-5463) for a free consultation.  All cases are taken on a contingency fee basis.

The contents of this blog are for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.  An attorney should be consulted and retained for legal advice.

WHEN ANIMALS ATTACK IN NEW YORK

By Marc Miner Esq.

During the past year victims of animal attacks have had a hard time finding relief through the courts.  Towards the end of 2011 the Court of Appeals in Smith v. Reilly dismissed plaintiff’s case because he could not overcome the defendant’s submission that the dog in issue did not have a “vicious propensity.”[i]  Such a result has become more common as the Court of Appeals has restricted the liability theories under which such cases can be proven. In fact, for persons injured as a result of the actions of an animal,New York is perhaps the toughest jurisdiction in the nation to be in.

To understand why those injured by animals in New York have such a hard time reaching a jury, one must understand what the standard of law is today.  In 2004 the Court of Appeals in Collier v. Zambito stated that “the law in this state has been that the owner of a domestic animal who either knows or should have known of that animal’s vicious propensities will be held liable for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities.”[ii]  Two years later in Bard v. Jahnke, the Court of Appeals held an animal owner’s liability is to be determined “solely” by application of the vicious propensity rule.[iii]

The owner of a domestic animal, whether a cat, dog, horse or bull, who either knows or should have known of that animal’s vicious propensities will be held liable for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities.[iv]   Vicious propensities include the “propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation.”[v]

Once knowledge of a vicious propensity is shown “an owner faces strict liability for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities.”[vi]

Dogs are not entitled to “one free bite.” Vicious propensity may be shown by other means.[vii]   The facts of each case must be looked at.  Thus vicious propensity may be shown under certain circumstances such as: whether the dog has been known to growl, snap or bare its teeth; whether the dog was kept restrained, and the reasons why; and whether the dog was kept as a guard dog.[viii] “A known tendency to attack others, even in playfulness, as in the case of the overly friendly large dog with a propensity for enthusiastic jumping up on visitors, will be enough to make the defendant liable for damages resulting from such an act.”[ix]

New York is unique in that when an injury is caused by an animal, whether or not the owner of the animal acted negligent, is wholly irrelevant on the issue of whether the injury victim will be compensated for the injuries suffered. The one and only question is whether the particular offending animal had previously shown a propensity to act in the manner which caused the injury.

New York appears to be the only state in the nation that rejects the rule set forth in the Restatement [Second] of Torts that the owner of a domestic animal who does not know or have reason to know that the animal is more dangerous than others of its class may still be liable for negligently failing to prevent the animal from inflicting an injury.[x] Further, despite having a strict liability rule, New York has not followed a number of states which have statutorily eliminated the requirement that a plaintiff prove that a dog owner knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious tendencies.  In adopting a strict liability approach, those states have decided that a dog owner as opposed to wholly innocent victims should bear the risk of dog ownership.[xi]

In the Collier case a 12 year old boy was a guest in the defendant’s home, where he was bitten by the defendant’s dog.  The parties were unaware of any prior incidents, and plaintiff herself testified that the dog had always been friendly.  Without a showing of a prior vicious propensity the case was dismissed.

In Bard the Court of Appeals crystallized that they did not intend to stray from their holding in Collier and that when it comes to dealing with domestic animals, justice is blind as to whether the animal is a 20 pound poodle or 2000 pound bull.[xii]  In Bard, the plaintiff was a carpenter hired to perform work on a farm.  He was aware that there were cows in the section of property where he was performing the work, but not that there was a bull.  However, as he was working, he became aware that a bull was a few feet away from him when the bull “bellered”.  The bull (whose name was “Fred”) had charged and struck the plaintiff in the chest, slamming him into pipes in the stall.  Plaintiff’s case was dismissed because Fred, who was allowed to roam freely and impregnate the cows, had according to his owner, never previously acted aggressively or injured another farm animal or human being.  Further, the court declined to hold that a breeding bull, (or for that matter female animals caring for their young), are a dangerous class of animals as a matter of law. That the farmer may have been negligent, in failing to warn of the bull or confine it, was of no consideration.

The next time the Court of Appeals considered an animal attack, in Bernstein v. Penny Whistle Toys, Inc., it made clear that it does not matter where the incident occurred.  The only standard that will be considered is the vicious propensity test, and the duty of a possessor of property to keep the premises reasonably safe, has no bearing in the discussion.[xiii]

In Petrone v. Hernandez, the Court of Appeals held that a Defendant’s violation of the local leash law was “irrelevant because such a violation is only some evidence of negligence, and negligence is no longer a basis for imposing liability” after Collier and Bard.[xiv]

In the past year, victims of animal attacks have had a particularly hard time finding relief through the courts.

The Fourth Department followed Petrone in holding that a violation of Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 was equally irrelevant. The Court held that even assuming, arguendo, that the statute required that shelter be provided to a domestic animal the violation of that statute was irrelevant because such a violation is only some evidence of negligence, and negligence is no longer a basis for imposing liability for injuries sustained as the result of” the actions of a domestic animal.[xv]  In the same case, the court held that, as Res Ipsa Loquitor is a negligence theory, it cannot be used in a case caused by an animal injury.  Thus, plaintiff’s cause of action relying on a Res Ipsa theory that a horse would not have escaped confinement and ran into the roadway absent negligence was dismissed.

In the Smith case, the plaintiff was a bicyclist who was injured when a dog owned by the defendant ran into the road and collided with plaintiff’s bicycle, causing plaintiff to be propelled over the handlebars.  The motion court denied the defendants motion for summary judgment, and the Fourth Department affirmed in a 3-2 decision, finding an issue of fact based upon defendant’s testimony that the dog had a propensity to bolt from her residence and that she had observed the dog in and around the roadway on several occasions.  The Court of Appeals reversed in a one paragraph memorandum decision holding that “Testimony that the dog, on three to five occasions, escaped defendant’s control, barked, and ran towards the road is insufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact.”

In three cases decided in the past year by the Appellate Divisions where dogs or horses have escaped their confinements, and caused accidents involving motorists, or bicyclists, the cases have been dismissed in the absence of a showing that the animal had a propensity to escape and interfere with traffic. It made no difference if the owner failed to lock the gate to the fence surrounding her property allowing her dog to push open gate and run into road.[xvi] 

The retention of an expert to show that an animal, or group of animals, were dangerous was wasted money by plaintiff, as the only issue the court is willing to consider is the vicious propensity of the specific animal in question.  Thus, plaintiff’s case was dismissed where he was attacked by a pack of 6 dogs owned by the defendant, despite expert testimony that the dogs may have been engaging in “social facilitation” and “pack behavior” as such was irrelevant and speculative.[xvii] 

Where a plaintiff had been knocked down by a dog, there was no actionable case based upon the owner’s negligent failure to restrain, where the plaintiff failed to show vicious propensity.[xviii]  Where a plaintiff saw his neighbor’s dog run at him, and tripped and fell as he attempted to run away, the case was dismissed as there was no evidence that the dog had previously run at other people.[xix]

Despite the Court’s seeming enmity towards victims of animal attacks, the Appellate Divisions have recently found some cases actionable.  Thus, vicious propensities have been found where a dog frequently shoved its nose under a fence and growled and snapped at neighbors[xx];  Where, a dog owner testified that he would put on a “bite sleeve” and trained the dog to jump up and grab the “bite sleeve”[xxi];  Where a dog had aggressively barked and growled at strangers in defendants’ presence and defendants were aware that the dog was “moody” and “protective”[xxii]; And, where defendants testified that their barking dog rushed toward cars and people on numerous occasions prior to the incident with plaintiff.[xxiii]

In summary, a person who has been injured due to the actions of a domestic animal must show that the animal had a propensity to engage in the behavior which caused the injuries.  Evidence must be obtained from people who had observed the animal’s behavior.  While such testimony may come from the victim, or people who came in contact with the animal (e.g. neighbors, veterinarians, delivery persons, the Department of Health, etc.), often a plaintiff will have to rely on the animal owner’s testimony in trying to prove a case. Since a plaintiff may be forced to rely on the defendant’s testimony in proving a case, and the court will not consider the defendant’s negligence or violation of law as relevant, New York is the “ruff”-est jurisdiction in the nation for a victim of an animal attack to find relief. 

Marc Miner, esq. is the principal attorney at the law firm of Zalman Schnurman & Miner.  He has written and lectured in the past on various personal injury matters, and can be reached at www.1800LAWLINE.COM. 

Reprinted with permission from the February 27, 2012 edition of the New York Law Journal © 2012, ALM media Properties, LLC, all rights reserved.  Further duplication without permission is prohibited. For information, contact 877-257-3382, reprints@aolm.com or visit www.almreprints.com.

 If you have been bitten or injured by a dog, or any other animal, you may call attorney Marc Miner for a free consultation about your rights at 1-800-LAWLINE (1-800-5295463).

I bring this up because a 17 year old girl who was born without hands is now complaining that she was barred from riding the Kraken coaster in Sea World. 

While one must respect her desire to not be held back by her condition, sometimes safety must take precedence over valor.  According to Sea World the manufacturers guidelines require that a guest be able to grasp the pull down harness with at least one hand.  It is expected that a lot of safety testing occurs before a roller coaster is designed or opened for public use.  The failure of a ride operator to abide by the recommended safety guidelines of a ride would clearly open them to liability in the case of a resulting injury.  For example, a man with no legs who was allowed to ride the Ride of Steel Coaster at the Darien Lake Theme Resort was thrown from the ride. 

Most rides have height and/or weight limits posted.  But not every restriction can be posted and common sense must prevail.  Let’s hope common sense prevails here and the the young lady and the amusement park can work something out without dragging the media or the courts into the matter.  Perhaps a nice swim with some dolphins would calm everyone down.

 If you are injured in an accident at an amusement park or elsewhere please call us 1-800-LAWLINE (1-800-529-5463) to discuss your rights.   The lawyers at Zalman Schnurman & Miner will be happy to provide a free consultation on your personal injury claims.

 A cruise ship today is a floating city with all the dangers of travelling to any city.  Some of the staff and fellow travelers are untrustworthy and carelesness can lead to tripping and slipping hazards, and injuries.  Now, add to the equation that the ship may be rocking making it difficult to walk, that alcohol is flowing freely reducing people’s ability to make good decisions, and people are packed in tightly.  All of these factors can lead to people becoming sick or injured on a cruise ship.

As in any other location, people have been killed, assaulted,  raped and disappeared on cruise ships.  The difference though is that when one of these crimes happen at sea there is no local police to investigate.  Cruise ship employees involved in crimes are often quickly shipped back to their country of origin never to be seen again.  Cruise companies more concerned about their reputation, and avoiding litigation, than helping passengers, have been known to put up roadblocks to prevent victims of crimes from discovering who was at fault.

Similarly, passengers of cruises have been injured when they have triped and fallen over defective conditions, or slipped and fallen on spills or poorly maintained surfaces.  Passengers are exposed to bed bugs in cabins which have not been properly exterminated.  People have been burned by hot beverages spilled on them by waiters.  When someone is injured they will usually be first treated by the ship’s doctor who has an interest in protecting his employer, the cruise line.  When an incident report is made by the cruise line, they likewise have an interest in writing it in a way to protect themselves.  

The time and place in which a lawsuit may be brought against a cruise line is controlled by the  cruise line.  The ticket for the cruise usually limits the location where a lawsuit may be commenced.  The venue for the lawsuit is often different from where you live, or where the cruise sailed from, but a passenger is bound by the language in the ticket.  Likewise, the time to start a lawsuit is usually shorter than the statute of limitations for similar land based claims.  It is common for cruise lines to require that lawsuits against them be commenced within one year of the incident.  It is important to read the language on the ticket to find out exactly what your rights are.

It is important to use common sense when on a cruise and keep your wits about you to avoid putting yourself in a compromising position.  If you are injured in an accident or assaulted, due to the negligence or action of the ship’s employees it is important to report what happened and gather as much information as possible as you can.  The names of persons involved, witnesses, and responders should all be recorded.  Take pictures of the location and any injuries.  Note the time and place of the occurrence.  All such information will be helpful later.

If a crime has been committed you should contact the local authorities in the first port of call.  As soon as possible you should also contact a lawyer to advise you about your rights in bringing a claim against the cruise line.  Because of the shorter statute of limitations and venue considerations it is important to  contact an attorney as soon as possible.  If you try to deal with representatives of the cruise line on your own they will likely to string you along with offers of future ship credits or other benefits which are of little cost to them, while your time to sue expires.

In summary, while the sinking of a cruise ship is a rare event, injuries and accidents on cruise ships are not rare.  While, you may be able to reduce your likelihood of injury by using common sense and avoiding dangerous and compromising positions, injuries caused by the negligence or actions of Cruise Lines and their employees do happen on a too frequent basis.  If you are the victim of a crime or injured on a cruise ship you should take the above steps to protect your rights.

Zalman Schnurman & Miner is a New York Personal Injury Law Firm.   Call us at 1-800-LAWLINE (1-800529-5463) for a free consultation.  All cases are taken on a contingency fee basis and thus there is no fee unless there is a recovery.

If you have been injured while on a cruise ship do not hesitate to call to discuss your rights.