Attorney Blog

Rochester Construction Worker Falls to Death

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)27910 — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:00:00 EST

We all were reminded of the daily dangers faced by construction workers when a forty-four year old man fell to his death in Rochester on March 4th. According to news accounts of the accident, the man was working on the roof of the Alexander Park Professional Center on Monroe Avenue near Alexander Streetwhen the accident occured.

While we don't have enough information presently to know how this accident occurred, many falls at construction sites are attributed to a failure on the part of the general contractor and building owner to provide the workers with safety equipment required by Section 240 of the New York State Labor Law, commonly known as the "scaffold law". This is the same law you hear so much about in the news when insurance company executives making millions and millions of dollars per year complain about the "high cost" of doing business in New York State. The truth of the matter is, that if contractors and building owners simply complied with the law and provided the required safety equipment to workers, the vast majority of injuries and deaths due to falls would not occur. The "high cost" part of the equation refers to the money the insurance fat cats have to pay the families of construction workers killed on the job because their insureds refuse to obey the law. But of course, they will never tell you that. They will just try to blame the "system" and injury lawyers and oftentimes, the worker himself.

My condolences go out to the family of the man who just passed. May they find peace and justice.

Did the Woman Killed at Drag Race Assume the Risk of Being Struck by Crash Debris?

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)27186 — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:00:00 EST

On the heels of an Olympic luger being killed when he crashed on the race track in Vancouver, comes the death of a woman over the weekend killed at a drag race in Arizona when struck by a tire from a vehicle that had just crashed. Could the families of either of these unfortunate people sue for their loved one's wrongful death?

There is a legal theory called the "assumption of risk doctrine", which says that if you voluntarily participate in a sporting event or are a spectator at such an event, you assume the chances of getting injured or killed by those risks commonly associated with the event. Because you assume those risks, neither you nor your family can later sue for your injuries or death caused by those risks. The question then becomes, is the manner in which you were injured commonly associated with the sporting event?

As for the luger, the answer is "yes", as New York's highest court has ruled on a very similar case that such a claim would be barred by the assumption of risk doctrine, because when you participate in an extremely dangerous sport like luge, you live (or die) with the results. But what about the drag race spectator?

While this issue has not been directly addressed by a New York court, I suspect the answer would depend on where the woman was seated relative to the safety fences and barriersand relative to where the accident occurred. A pretty good argument could be made that being killed by flying crash debris is not a risk commonly appreciated or inherent in watching drag racing. At least that is my opinion, but then again I am an injury lawyer. What do you think?

Another Car Accident With Massive Injuries Involving a Disabled Vehicle in the Roadway

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)26506 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:00:00 EST

Just two months ago Julie Stratton of Snyder, New York was killed when her disabled vehicle was struck from behind by a truck on the New York thruway. A similar accident happened earlier this week in Batavia, Genesee County, when two students at Genesee Community College received very serious injuries when their vehicle was struck from behind by a minivan. Pearl Jefferson, the driver of the vehicle that became disabled, and her friend Megan McClurg, are both lucky to be alive. The collision occured while Megan was trying to push the car out of the road while Pearl was steering.

While we don't know the cause of the accident yet, I can envision all sides hiring their own lawyer and blaming the other. New York does have a rule called "comparative negligence", which means if you are partly responsible for causing the acident you can still recover from the other side, but the award the jury makes you for your injury is reduced by your share of responsibility.

What should you do if your car becomes disabled in the roadway? Get out of it if you can safely do so, get someplace safe, and call the police. Saving your car is not worth losing your life.

Trucker Who Killed Woman in Crash Was Watching Porn on Laptop

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)25906 — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:00:00 EST

My friends would likely tell you that I am never at a loss for words, but after hearing that the trucker who killed Julie Stratton in an accident last month on the New York Thruway was distracted because he was watching porn on his laptop at the time of the crash, I am almost speechless. Meaning, while I am struggling to find civil words to describe my outrage and contempt at the trucker's alleged behavior, I have no shortage of f-bombs and other four-letter words on the tip of my tongue.

Hurtling down the road behind the wheel of a tractor trailer that may have weighed as much as 200,000 pounds while sleep deprived and while getting his kicks watching adult movies is so grossly reckless that it nearly defies comprehension. If I were reperesenting Ms. Stratton's family on their injury and wrongful death case against the trucker and his employer, I would be salivating at the opportunity to lay this case out in front of a jury so that the jury would hammer the defendants with an enormous verdict. And I would have to keep my self in check during the trial so as not to let my true thoughts (and words) slip out. Lawyers get in heap big trouble for saying things they shouldn't in court.

Okay, venting period is over. My heart breaks for Ms. Stratton's husband and children. I wish them peace and healing.

Fatal Car Accident in Perry Teaches Harsh Lesson

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)24728 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:00:00 EST

     We should all be more careful when driving in winter weather.   A very unfortunate woman named Susanne Bzduch was killed recently in Perry, Wyoming County, in a car accident when a crash occured due to poor driving conditions. Perhaps we become over confidant because we drive in snowy, icy conditions for several months of the year.
     According to news accounts of the accident, Stormie Myers, age 28 of Perry, lost control of her truck on a slippery road and careened into a vehicle driven by Danielle Heubusch, age 36 of Warsaw. Ms. Bzduch was the front seat passenger in Ms. Myers' vehicle. My most sincere condolences go out to her family.
     Who is responsible for this tragedy? Well, I guess we just don't know for sure, but if news accounts are correct, it seems that at least Ms. Heubusch would have a case against Myers. However juries can be funny sometimes and take sympathy on a driver like Ms. Myers. Critical factors will be how fast Ms. Myers was driving, whether other drivers lost control of their vehicles in the same area as Ms. Myers did, whether her vehicle's tires had adequate tread for winter driving, etc.  Oddly enough, my experience as an injury lawyer has told me that people generally fall into two groups on cases like this- those who think that the driver of the vehicle that lost control is completely blameless because of the weather conditions, and those who believe that there is never a reason to lose control of your vehicle if you are exercising proper care.
     Please drive slowly and remember that the accident you think will never happen to you (and your family), just might.

*****Update January 11, 2010. I just received a very helpful, anonymous phone call that perhaps the accident did not appear as related in news accounts (and that I got the facts wrong). My apologies to anyone if I had incorrect information in this blog.

Mother, Baby Killed in Bad Weather Accident

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)24556 — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:00:00 EST

My heart aches for the family of Stephanie Ali, age 22, and her baby, both of whom were killed when Ms. Ali apprantely lost control of the vehicle she was driving in Grand Island on Tuesday on a snow road. It seems that even though we in western New York are accustomed to driving in bad weather, people often aren't as cautious as they should be. That appears to be the case with Ms. Ali, whose car spun out of control and collided with a car in the opposite lane driven by Michael Szmanski, age 43, also of Grand Island.

Days prior to Ms. Ali's accident, I had a great "teachable moment" with my three sons in the car during a trip to Marketplace Mall on a snowy, windy day. My boys were complaining how slow I was driving when we were passed in the northbound lane of Route 390 by a man in an SUV going about 65 mph. Seconds after I told my boys how dangerous the man was driving and how some people become recklessly over confident when driving a four wheel drive vehicle, the man's truck spun out in front of us, crossed the divider while rolling over, and came to rest in the southbound lane of traffic. Remarkably, his vehicle was not struck by an oncoming car as far as we could tell.
Please, when driving this winter, slow down. As a car accident lawyer who has seen countless winter weather accidents and injury cases in the Rochester area, I can tell you that the vast majority of them could have been avoided had the driver exercised more caution and driven slower. Don't be the next Stephanie Ali.

Another Hunter Injured in Fall from Gander Mountain Tree Stand

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)23929 — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:00:00 EST

     Its funny how word gets out about dangerous and defective products that are subject to a product recall. Since an article appeared in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle newspaper and in the Livingston County News ( See here http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20091212/SPORTS/912120342/Tree-stand-recall-forced and here http://thelcn.com/blog/2009/12/geneseo-attorney-prompts-national-tree-stand-recall/ ), I have received numerous phone calls from other hunters around western New York and the southern tier looking for an injury lawyer who have been hurt in falls from tree stands. Some of these callers have become clients who may posess claims against the manufacturers and retailers of the tree stands they fell from.
     Contrary to public opinion, the fact that Gander Mountain Company has recalled the 2008 models of their GMT-101 and GMT-103  does not mean that anyone who was injured using those products will get money from Gander Mountain. They must first prove, among other things, that a defect in the product caused their injury. Further, in order to inform a New York jury about the roduct recall, the injured hunter must get around an evidence rule which says that evidence of a product recall can't be used to prove the subject product was indeed defective.
     So what am I telling you? If you think you may have a claim for injuries suffered through use of a tree stand or any other hunting product, call an experienced product liability lawyer who can put you in touch with the right experts and evaluate your case. Do it sooner rather than later, and preserve the product/piece of equipment in the state it was in when you were injured- do not modify it in any way.

Gander Mountain Treestand Recall Due to Legal Action by Injured Hunter

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)22813 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:00:00 EST

     While personal injury lawsuits and lawyers get their fair share of criticism, the good that comes from some of those lawsuits (and lawyers) also deserves recongition.   A very good example can be found in the recent decision by the Consumer Product Safety Commission announcing the recall of certain Gander Mountain hunting treestands.
     The treestands that are being recalled are 2008 models GMT 101 and GMT 103 Hang On-Fixed Position Treestands. Why were those defective treestands recalled? Because a Livingston County, New York, man has sued Gander Mountain in federal court in Rochester, New York, for the very serious injuries he sustained when his brand-new GMT 103 treestand collapsed beneath him, without warning, causing him to fall aproximately fourteen feet to the ground. If not for this man's lawsuit we brought on his behalf, chances are excellent these defective products would still be in the marketplace and being purchased and used. And unfortunately, more people would likely be hurt or killed if the stands were not recalled.
     So the next time you hear someone complain about personal injury lawyers and lawsuits, remind them that it is those very cases and lawyers that are responsible for forcing companies to remove their dangerous and defective products, preventing further injry.

Lawsuit Abuse Article in NY Daily News Raises Interesting Questions

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)22267 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

     You won't find anyone, anywhere who believes frivolous lawsuits are a good thing. The problem of course is determining which lawsuits are abusive or frivolous, and those legitimate lawsuits which have had their facts misstated to further a "tort reform" agenda.
     As I am a personal injury lawyer, you might guess that I would immediately jump up and defend "abusive lawsuits", but you couldn't be more wrong. It does me and my clients no good whatsoever to have certain moronic lawsuits pursued in our court system, as doing so devalues my clients' legitimate claims. A perfect example is the case brought by D.C. Judge Roy Pearson, who had sued his dry cleaner for $63 million over a lost pair of $54 pants. Fortunately, Mr. Pearson's case was thrown out, but not before the dry cleaner went out of business because of his legal bills. Justly, Mr. Pearson lost his position as Judge in Washington this past Spring, almost certainly because of his lost pants lawsuit.
     Lawrence Mcquillan and Mark Kriss recently published an article in the NY Daily news about abusive lawsuits and how they are hurting New York's ailing economy. Maybe, but any discussion of "lawsuit abuse" must be based on true facts and real cases and without a political agenda. I hope to speak with Mr. Mcquillan and Mr. Kriss and learn more about the cases cited in their article as examples of abusive cases. I will follow up.............

Woman Attacked by Chimp Has Reasonable Argument for Large Award Against State of Connecticut

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)21778 — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

     As a New York personal injury and accident lawyer in Livingston County near Rochester with more than seventeen years of experience holding corporations and individuals responsbile for causing injuries and accidents, I am watching the case of Charla Nash against the state of Connecticut with great interest. Ms. Nash is the unfortunate woman who was horribly mauled and tremedously disfigured by a friend's 200 pound pet chimpanzee. According to news accounts, a biologist with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection had warned state officials before the attack that the chimp at issue (named "Travis") could seriously harm someone due to his great strength and size.
     If these news accounts prove true, it would appear that the state of Connecticut failed to fulfill its most basic obligation to Ms. Nash- to keep her safe from an identifiable and foreseeable harm that the Department of Environmental Protection is charged with regulating.  A pretty good argument could be made that the state was negligent by even allowing private ownership of chimpanzees in the first place.
     Is the $150 million that Ms. Nash is suing for excessive?   Perhaps that question could best be answered by asking if you would wish to trade places now with Ms. Nash in exchange for the money. I know I wouldn't. Would you?

Lawyers Are Not the Problem With Our Health Care System

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)20517 — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:00:00 EST

     I understand that the unseemly conduct of certain personal injury attorneys, through actions and their cheesy advertising, make lawyers an easy target for ridicule and blame. However, blaming lawyers for the high cost and other ills associated with our health care system is wrong and inaccurate,
     The primary complaint in this regard is that the threat of lawsuits and lawyers is the reason why doctors order "unnecessary tests". Just what is an unnecessary test? I wish one of our politicians who complain about these procedures would define just what an "unnecessary test", is. In my family, and in yours, if our doctor recommends a test to rule out a desease or potential health problem with one of our family members, even though the chances that the illness is present are very, very small, we are going to accept that test. Why do we do this? Because we want the best care and treatment possible.  Then just what is an "unnecessary test", then? It is a test performed on someone other than you or a member of your family.
     So, unless you stop all testing for your family for potentially life threatening deseases when the probability that your child or spouse actually has that illness is less than say, 10%, stop blaming the lawyers and start blaming the person looking back at you in the mirror.

Dram Shop Case Against Waterfront Bars May Be On Target

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)19135 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:00:00 EST

     I believe folks need to take personal responsibility for their actions, particularly when they screw up. The family of Cori Mitchell, a 28 year old father of four children, and their lawyer, believe that four waterfront bars along Lake Ontario, near Rochester, New York, screwed up in serving alcohol to Howard Eddy, the night he crashed his speed boat into a pier on Lake Ontario near the mouth of the Genesee River. Eddy was highly intoxicated at the time of the accident, killing three passengers, including Mr. Mitchell. Mitchells' family has sued the bar owners, claiming they are responsible for his wrongful death.
     The law in New York provides that any establishment that serves alcohol to a visibly drunk individual may be liable for the personal injuries, including death, that may be caused subsequently by the drunk. This is known as the Dram Shop Act, set forth in the General Obligations Law.
     If newspaper accounts of Mr. Eddy's actions are correct, at least four different bars served him alcohol sometime between 11:00p.m. on June 27, 2008 and 2:00a.m on June 28th, just prior to the crash. Mr. Eddy plead guilty to manslaughter in Monroe County Court concerning that incident (he had a blood alcohol level of .20), and was sentenced to state prison.   Will Mr. Mitchell’s family win? Probably not against all four of the bars, but he might have a good argument against those bars who served him just prior to the boat trip. While no amount of money will bring Mr. Mitchell back or assuage the grief of his family, perhaps it will cause bar owners and employees to think twice before serving the next Howard Eddy.
     What do you need to learn from this? Well, if you are a bar or restaurant owner or employee, make certain you do not serve anyone whom you believe may be intoxicated. Err on the side of caution and cut the customer off, with a smile. For the rest of you, if a family member or loved one is injured by a drunk, either on the water or on the road, and you believe the drunk may have become intoxicated at a bar or restaurant, it is critical that a detailed, immediate investigation must be conducted of all customers and employees at the bar/restaurant upon learning of the accident. Competent experts must also be retained.
     By the way, under the Dram Shop Act, you can’t sue the bar or restaurant owners for your own injuries caused by your intoxication. If you get drunk and hurt yourself, its your fault. Deal with it.

Justice Served Again In Case Involving Death of Geneseo Student

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)18919 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:00:00 EST

     There was another guilty plea in Livingston County Court this week in the drinking death of SUNY Geneseo student Armen Partamian. Daniel Welch of Erie County plead guilty to Unlawful Dealing With A Child, a misdemeanor, for which he will pay a fine and perform three weekends of community service in the County jail program.
     The original charges against Welch and two other Geneseo students, Criminally Negligent Homicide and Hazing, would have been extremely difficult for the District Attorney to prove. While some argue that Welch and the others should not have been charged at all because of this accident, as Partamian voluntarily chose to becomehighly intoxicated, I disagree. Providing alcohol to your friends when you know they are A.) already highly intoxicated, and B.) intent on drinking until they pass out, is reckless and dangerous and no different than providing them a loaded gun with which to play Russian roullette.
     Was justice served? Yes, assuming the message is getting through that the type of irresponsible behavoir that Partamian, Welch and the others engaged in will not be tolerated.
     The next step? Civil actions against the college and the greek organizations on campus for the wrongful death of Partamian, with a claim by the injury lawyer invovled for punitive damages for knowlingly tolerating this type of behavoir in the past.   Maybe then serious action will be undertaken to stop this recklessness.

Injury lawyer advises farmers, farm workers about common farm accidents.

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)18731 — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 08:00:00 EST

The good news is that the number of workers injured in farm related accidents in New York and around the country has steadily fallen in the last ten years, and particularly in the last two in New York. The bad news is that farming continues to be one of the most hazardous occupations, with numerous incidents resulting in death and serious personal injury. The most likely culprits are tractor rollover and employees getting caught up in a power take off, or PTO.
What can farmers do to protect themselves and their workers? First, make sure all of your employees are paid on the books and covered by Worker's Compensation insurance. If an off-the-books employee gets injured, in addition to a huge penalty imposed by Worker's Compensation (usually three times the amount you should have been paying Worker's Comp for all employees paid under the table during their term of employment), you will also be sued by the employee and his lawyer for his/her injuries, losing the protection from suit you would normally have enjoyed by paying the employee on the books and providing Worker's Compensation insurance. Next, make sure that all farm equipment has the necessary safety devices attached and in operable condition.

To avoid an accident, farm employees should always remember when working around equipment to keep their clothing and hair tucked in and avoid loose fitting clothes that could get caught up in a PTO. If a tractor is missing a rollover bar or other piece of safety gear, don't use the equipment.

Another car accident and another fatality caused by drinking and driving

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)18641 — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 08:00:00 EST

Another weekend in the Rochester are and another death caused by drinking and driving. It seems that these accidents just continue to pile up, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on DWI education and "awareness". We are, as a society, aware of the potential tragedy caused by drinking and driving; we just don't seem to care.

Case in point: On September 19th, Dennis S. Rising and David T. Roehrig was seriously injured in Victor when Rising lost control of his car on a curve and struck a tree at about 4:30a.m. Police say speed, alcohol and lack of seatbelt use were factors in the crash. No doubt that Mr. Rising knew that drinking and driving accidents kill and injure tens of thousands in this country each year, but I suspect that Mr. Rising, like all of the others, just didn't think it would happen to him.

As for David Roehrig, let's hope he heals up and is able to move on with his life. He will almost certainly hire a lawyer and make a claim against Rising's insurance company to compensate him for his injuries. But hopefully he will use this incident to spread the word that yes, it can happen to you, too. Maybe then we will have fewer death and injury cases caused by DWI.

Allowing Police to Draw Blood At Roadside on Suspected DWI Cases is a Horrible Idea

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)18344 — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:00:00 EST

The recent article in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle proposing to allow police officers at traffic stops to use a syringe to draw blood from a suspected drunk driver should be placed in the category of "worst ideas EVER".
While drunk drivers are a menace and a hazard, there is no reason, at least in New York state, to authorize police officers to perform what is essentially a medical procedure. I don't care how much training officers might get, the prospect of cops taking blood samples at the side of the road is a horrible idea under any measure of common sense. Aside from the hazard of injury to the motorist by an ill-performed procedure, which could include transmission of AIDS or HIV, the risks alone to the officer drawing the blood outweigh any perceived advantage to the prosecutors or the public. If you were the police, would you want to take blood from a potentially intoxicated and/or potentially violent individual in the confines of the back seat of a police car?

In New York, police authorities may take a person suspected of drunk driving to appropriate medical professionals who can draw the blood under proper conditions. The law also provides for the blood to be drawn under authority of the court in certain situations. The law also allows police to arrest individuals for drunk driving without proof of the individuals blood alcohol content. Why put the health of police officers and motorists at risk when there is no reason to do so?
As a lawyer having represented many, many people injured in accidents caused by drunk drivers and the families of those killed by drunk drivers, I can tell you that I can't think of a single instance when I have been prosecuting a personal injury case against a drunk driver where a difference would have been made in the case of the cop on the scene drew blood. Such a procedure isn't needed in New York and is not worth the risks to all invovled.

Livingston County teen killed in drunk driving accident

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)16964 — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:00:00 EST

My heart breaks for the family of Katie Stanley of West Sparta, Livingston County. Katie was killed by a drunk driver in a two-car accident on August 14th in Genesee County. Ronald Wendt of Alexander has been charged with second degree vehicular manslaughter and driving while intoxicated. It is alleged that he caused the accident by making a left turn in front of the vehicle in which Ms. Stanley was a passenger, causing the accident.

I have no idea what the evidence is against Mr. Wendt presently, but based on experience, I would bet that a sample of his blood was drawn by police investigators, and that the forensic test done on that blood will be the chief piece of evidence in the case. If it turns out that Mr. Wendt was intoxicated, he must be sent to state prison. I don't care if he doesn't have a prior record, or if he is universally regarded as a nice young man. In order to discourage other young people from drinking and driving, he must be punished harshly.

Unfortunately, we hear every summer of some local young person(s) needlessly killed by an equally young intoxicated driver. As the father of three young boys, two of whom are teenagers, I want to be able to talk with them about poor Katie and about the time Mr. Wendt will spend in prison if convicted of vehicular manslaughter. I want to scare the daylights out of them in the hope that they will not drink and drive or ride in a car with someone who has been drinking. Am I selfish? I don't think so, and I doubt Katie's family would think so, either.

No amount of money will bring Katie back to life or assuage her family's grief. While I am certain that her family will justifiably will make a wrongful death claim against Mr. Wendt and his insurer, the amount of money they will receive will be a slap in the face to her heartbroken parents. I say this from the experience of a lawyer having represented many grieving families in injury cases similar to this one, and I have no doubt that Katie's family will not receive justice in the civil court system. Let's hope that the criminal court dealing with this case will give the family the justice they deserve, while sending a strong message to young people that might save another family the anguish of burying their own Katie.

Livingston County Man Dies After Being Struck by Car at Demolition Derby

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)16347 — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:00:00 EST

     David Connors, age 64, of Hemlock, Livingston County, died after being hit by a van which was participating in a demolition derby in Batavia on July 25th.    Mr. Connors was part of a safety crew known as the "Derby Dogs" at the time of the accident, standing outside the perimeter of the derby. Connors had apparently been involved with demolition derby and the Derby Dogs for many years.
     His experience with demolition derby is important as several people have criticized his participation, suggesting that his getting injured was a highly likely event. Others have suggested that perhaps his estate will sue the event organizers for his injuries and death.  The problem with the foregoing is that if Mr. Connors did indeed put himself in an unreasonably dangerous position at the event, it would likely bar him from a successful claim against anyone, as he arguably would have assumed the risk of injury and eath by his voluntary participation in the event and proximity to the danger. This is a factual question, however, and we don't have the facts to make this call or criticize the man.
     As for the money aspect of any suit against the responsible partyies (if there are any), in New York, those persons legally responsible for causing his death would be obligated to pay his estate what boils down to the present value of the wages he would have lost by virtue of his death. This means, if he was working and not retired, all his estate would be able to recover for his wrongful death would be the total of all he would have earned over the remainder of his expected working life, which, probably wouldn't be much due to his age (64 year old men have a very short work life before they retire.)
     It is unfortunate that the loss of a loved one is often reduced to a mathematical calculation, but lawyers don't necessarily make the laws, but we do have to follow them.

Monroe County DOT worker hit by car at worksite

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)14891 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

Leroy Morgan, age 68 of Rochester, was injured when struck by a car while setting traffic cones in a work zone. Mr. Morgan was sitting in the back of a County pickup truck when the truck was rearended. Mr. Morgan received massive injuries to his legs.

Because Mr. Morgan was on the job when the accident occured, he is entitled to Worker's Compensation benefits to cover his medical expenses and to compensate him for his lost wages. He is also entitled to seek payment from the insurance company that insured the vehicle that ran into him, but only for the difference between the 2/3 wage reimbursement paid by Worker's Comp and the 80% paid by the insurance company for the driver who caused the accident. Further, any medical expenses not paid by WC could be submitted to the auto insurer.

The critical issue for Mr. Morgan, if he pursues a case against the guy who ran into him, is that he not settle that case with the auto insurer without first getting the consent of Worker's Comp., as his failure to do so could give Worker's Comp a lien on the money he gets from the autoinsurer!

Canadien hockey team accident case moves forward

scott@cannonlaw.net (Blog Author)13917 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:00:00 EST

The injury case arising from the January, 2005 bus accident that occured on Route 390 in Geneseo, Livingston County, is moving forward. In that case, a bus travellling in the southbound lane veered right onto the shoulder, striking a tractor trailer that had pulled over so that the driver of the tractor could walk his dog. Three people on the bus were killed, as was the driver of the tractor. Nineteen others were injured. There are numerous plaintiffs, both from Canada and the U.S.

In Livingston County Supreme Court this week, the Canadien plaintiffs and the defendant bus company, defendant tractor company, and defendant trailer company agreed to allocate fault 90% to the bus company and 10% to the tractor and trailer companies. I suspect that the other (non-Canadien) plaintiffs will similalrly agree to the allocation of fault/liability, thereby setting the table for the trial to proceed on the damages to be awarded to each plaintiff.

Interestingly, on the issue of damages, the Canadien plaintiffs are limited under Canadien law to a specific dollar amount of money, while those plaintiffs proceeding under New York law will, on the wrongful death aspect of the case, be awarded an unlimited amount based upon the evidence of the financial loss occassioned the decedant's death.

Gander Mountain Treestand Recall Due to Lawsuit Brought by Livingston County Man

scott@cannonlaw.net (News Author)11580 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:00:00 EST

     Scott D. Cannon, personal injury attorney in Geneseo, New York, is pleased to announce that as a result of a lawsuit he has brought against Gander Mountain Company on behalf of a Livingston County man, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has recalled approximately thirteen thousand defective deer hunting treestands nationwide.
     The treestands recalled are 2008 models GMT101 and GMT 103. Cannon relates that the reason the treestands are being recalled is because they may collapse without warning, causing the hunter and treestand to fall to the ground, possibly resulting in serious injury or death. According to Cannon and the forensic engineer he hired on the case from Madison Wisconsin, Dennis Skogen, the collapse was caused by design and manufacturing defects. Among other defects, a spring snap, which snap was intended to be attached to a bracket on the stand thereby keeping the unit attached to the tree, is prone to failure.
     In addition to the dangers posed by defective treestands and falling out of a tree, Cannon also warns all hunters who hunt from treestands to make sure they wear a passive restraint harness that will safely lower them to the ground automatically in the event of a fall. Any other type of harness that will result in the hunter being suspended from the tree could cause aphyixiation or death, according to Cannon.
     If you have purchased one of the recalled treestands from Gander Mountain Company, you may phone Gander Mountain at (888) 542-6337 to obtain a refund or exchange. You may also call the Consumer Product Safety Commission at (800) 638-2772.

Test News Article

scott@cannonlaw.net (News Author)8283 — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:00:00 EST

This is a test news article.