A recent trend has come to our attention in the realm of motor vehicle accident settlements. More than one of our clients, upon initial consultation for personal injuries related to a motor vehicle accident, has advised us that they have received and cashed checks from the other person's motor vehicle insurance carrier prior to meeting with us. These checks are generally in the $250.00 to $500.00 range. Importantly, although our clients are being told that the small payments are being provided to them for medical co-pays and deductibles, our close review of the documentation provided with the checks has revealed that the checks are being provided in exchange for a full and final settlement of any and all personal injuries.

The clients that have approached us with these checks were shocked to find out that they may have jeopardized their right to collect full and complete compensatory damages for their pain and suffering, disability and impairment, and loss of enjoyment of life by merely receiving, acknowledging and cashing these small checks when they were specifically told by the insurance companies that the checks were being provided to them for their medical co-pays and their deductibles. In this regard, New Jersey law provides that a tortfeasor will not be responsible for any medical co-pays and/or deductibles in a motor vehicle accident. As such, it is clear to us that these insurance companies were clearly misrepresenting the facts to our clients for purposes of fraudulently entering into a settlement agreement.

Fortunately, after our involvement, a majority of the insurance companies have "backed away" from their position that the case has been settled and will allow our clients' remaining personal injury claims to go forward. More astoundingly, at least one insurance company has refused to back off their position and we are presently looking into filing suit against them and all of the insurance companies that have engaged in this practice as a result of their engaging in fraud, deceit and violation of various New Jersey statutes concerning Fair Settlement Practices.

In light of all of the above, it is especially important that, if you are involved in a motor vehicle accident, you do not sign any paperwork provided to you by the other driver's insurance company, or cash any checks provided to you by them, before speaking to a lawyer qualified in the area of personal injury litigation. While generally checks payable to body shops for property damage and checks payable directly to you for vehicles which have been totaled as a result of the accident are safe to sign and/or deposit, we suggest speaking to an attorney first.

A recent appellate case, Luchejko v. City of Hoboken, et.al., holds that a condominium association is not liable for dangerous conditions on the public sidewalk abutting the condominium association's property. This recent decision highlights the current status of New Jersey sidewalk liability law. As indicated in prior blogs, a landlord is generally responsible or legally liable for personal injuries as a result of dangerous conditions existing on its property. However, there are significant exceptions when this general rule is applied to public sidewalks within the State of New Jersey.

For purposes of personal injury liability, public sidewalks in the state of New Jersey are basically divided into two categories. The first are those that abut residential premises. The second category includes those public sidewalks that abut commercial premises. As a general rule, a homeowner or an owner of a residential premises will not be responsible for injuries which are the result of dangerous conditions on the public sidewalk abutting their premises. In this regard, it is the local public entity that will be responsible. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, such as where the owner of the residence actually creates the condition that gave rise to the injury. Further, the public entity's responsibility for injuries occurring on the public sidewalks abutting residences will be tempered (?) limited to the provisions of New Jersey's Tort Claims Act.

On the other hand, owners of commercial premises will be responsible for injuries that are sustained as a result of dangerous conditions contained within public sidewalks abutting those commercial premises. Thus, generally, owners of commercial premises have a duty to properly maintain the sidewalks that abut their property. This duty extends to the removal of ice and snow. The theory behind imposing this duty upon commercial establishments relates to the potential revenue generates by the business and shifting the risk away from the public entities.

In any event, the main difficulty in such cases is determining whether or not the property is "commercial" or "residential." For instance, should a multi-tenant apartment building be considered commercial or residential for the purposes of this analysis? Should a church be considered commercial or residential? Basically, the courts have stated that the test really is whether or not the property has the capacity to generate income. Thus, even residential properties that are owned for investment or business purposes will be classified as commercial under this analysis. Similarly, a parochial school and a fraternity house have also been held to be commercial establishments for purposes of this test.

In the recent case of Luchejko v. City of Hoboken et.al. the issue was whether or not a condominium association should be considered commercial or residential entity because the condominium complex at issue in this case was basically and predominantly an owner-occupied, and the condominium association was a "non-profit" corporation, the court considered that this complex qualified as a residential premises. Accordingly, liability was not extended. However, it appears that the Appellate Division did not provide a blanket rule that all condominium associations should be treated in the same way. Each case must be properly reviewed, examined and analyzed, given its unique facts and circumstances of the incident.

The fact sensitive nature of this type of case makes it crucial that a very skilled attorney analyze all the details and circumstances surrounding the incident that led to an injury at the first possible moment, in order to be legally successful and to sufficiently protect your rights.

An LA woman recently sued Google, reportedly, after she was struck by a car on State Route 224 in Salt Lake County, Utah. The woman alleges that she followed directions that were given to her on her blackberry through Google Maps, and that those instructions led her onto a roadway where vehicles travel at a "high rate of speed" and there are no pedestrian sidewalks. The lawsuit alleges that Google failed to warn the Plaintiff of the known dangers of the roadway. The suit also included a claim against the operator of the vehicle which struck her.

While a lawsuit of this type sounds outrageous on its face, the application of general principles of negligence reveal that such a cause of action is not far fetched. Generally, the manufacturer or creator of a product (in this case Google Maps), has a duty to make the product safe for the end users, as well as for its intended use. If some component of such a product creates a foreseeable harm or danger to the end user, the creator or manufacturer must provide adequate and appropriate warnings concerning the products' use. (link to CRUW product liability)

In this case, the end user of the product, the Plaintiff, merely alleges that Google Maps failed to warn her of the absence of sidewalks as well as the fact that State Route 224 contains motor vehicles traveling at high rates of speed. She further alleges that, had such warnings been given, she may have chosen a different route or path.

Obviously, common sense also comes into play when we discuss such liability. In this regard, the Plaintiff will have to explain to the judge or the jury her reasoning for proceeding by foot in an area where there were no pedestrian sidewalks. This explanation, or the lack of the woman's common sense, will be weighed against Google's alleged failure to provide appropriate or adequate warnings. Under NJ law, the woman's cause of action against Google would be barred if her improper actions rose to a level higher than the improper actions of Google. In this case, it is fair to say that a majority of individuals reading this blog would agree that her indiscretion walking on a highway without a sidewalk should negate any liability on behalf of Google. However, under our legal system, that would be up to the judge and jury to ultimately decide at a trial after ALL the facts and circumstances are made known.

Regardless of your opinion on this matter, one thing is clear: the attorney for the woman is exploring every avenue in order to properly and effectively represent his client in an effort to look for any and all individuals and all companies which may be responsible for the personal injuries suffered. If you are injured, you should ensure your rights are sufficiently represented.