NY Rear-End Collision Attorney

Rear-end accident subject of suit

Tuesday July 26th, 2011 - -

Now here's a twist that will spark passionate emotions. The husband of a drunken women who not only ended up killing herself but also seven other people in a horrific Taconic State Parkway crash two years ago, is blaming everyone but his wife.

He has filed a lawsuit against the state claiming that the highway was poorly designed and lacked signs that allowed his wife to drive the wrong way into traffic.

Among the victims in this horrific accident was his brother-in-law whose three daughters were also killed in this horrific crash.

The suit, filed July 25th 2011 in the New York Court of Claims, is on behalf of the estate of the Schulers' two children, Erin, 2, who died, and Bryan, 5, the sole survivor of the worst Westchester crash in 75 years.

Shockingly, the husband, has also filed a separate suit against his wife's brother, whose three young daughters were killed. He argues that because Warren Hance, his brother-in-law, owned the car that Diane was driving, he is "vicariously liable." Unbelievable!!

The suits seek unspecified money damages.

This was a terrible tragedy that killed seven innocent people. Suing NY State and people who are suffering seems incomprehensible.

Schuler has repeatedly contested accounts of his wife's intoxication. She crashed, going 85 mph, into a Chevrolet Trailblazer, also killing three other innocent victims in this catastrophic accident.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/wrong_way_family_feud_4KzIwXB8nOCFJSwCgYhpFP

What is the husband thinking? Does he truly believe he has a leg to stand on? She had drugs and alcohol in her system while speeding down a one-way street. This is the kind of frivolous law suit that complicates our legal system.

Allow people to heal from such a tragedy. Rubbing salt in the wounds and dredging up painful memories is insulting to the memories of the victims and the loved ones they left behind --

The question is he acting from pain or denial.

http://pysih.com/2010/01/23/diane-schuler-an-interesting-perspective/

Should a bar owner be ordered to pay a fine in relation to a patron who got drunk and crashed into another driver? Should we blame it on the bars?

Monday June 27, 2011 --

A state Supreme Court jury awarded $550,000 Monday to the victim of a DWI-related car crash in 2008 -- and placed nearly half the blame on the downtown Albany nightclub that served booze to the drunken driver before he hit the road.

The six-member jury unanimously determined the Bar on Central Avenue wrongly served alcohol to "visibly intoxicated" patron during the early hours of Sept. 12, 2008.

The Patron later got behind the wheel of his Lexus and rear-ended a Mazda Protege on the northbound lanes of Interstate 787 about 3:20 a.m.

The driver of the Mazda ended-up needing surgery to have bones in his neck and spine fused. He has permanent restrictions in the ability to move his neck, which contains a plate.

Bars have a responsibility to make sure they don't over-serve people. It is no mystery that drunk drivers cause injuries.

The jury found the that the bar not only caused or contributed to the intoxication of the driver -- but that its actions were a "substantial factor" in the injuries suffered by the victim in the crash.

A Rochester-based toxicologist, testified during the one-week trial, determined that the negligent driver had a .24 blood alcohol level after the crash -- three times the legal .08 blood alcohol threshold for driving while intoxicated in New York state.

The negligent driver had a passenger in his car at the time. He was sentenced to 1 to 3 years in prison in April 2009 for felony driving while intoxicated.

The jury unanimously awarded the injured victim $250,000 in damages for past pain and suffering and, with one dissenter, awarded him $300,000 for future pain and suffering.

Under New York's long-standing "Dram Shop" law, a person injured by a drunken driver can sue bars or liquor stores that served the motorist alcohol, should if it can be proven the sale was illegal.