Case Results

We obtained a $150,000 settlement for a 29 year old man who was assaulted while visiting Long Island from his home in Ontario Canada. He was at a local restaurant/bar in Sag Harbor on a summer evening in 2003 when a brawl broke out resulting in injuries, including getting a severe bite on his nose.

Led by partner Daniel C. Ross, the attorneys and the staff at Keegan & Keegan, Ross & Rosner LLP fought repeated motions and delays throughout the time the case was pending, and recently negotiated a $150,000 award for the client. The bar settled when Dan was able to establish that the doorman and other bar employees failed to follow proper protocol in attempting to quell the disturbance.

Bars and other establishments that serve alcohol have responsibilities under certain legal requirements commonly known as Dram Shop Liability. They generally arise from serving minors or patrons who are – or even appear to be – intoxicated. By showing responsibilities even beyond the dram shop liability, the firm developed facts that would have placed the bar in a position of significant responsibility if they did not settle.

Not surprisingly, the bar’s insurance company and its attorneys tried every maneuver to avoid owning up to its responsibility. This was met with the dogged determination this firm is known for, and when they saw a jury would soon be telling them how much to pay, they settled the case.

“We are not done yet” Dan said when he delivered the client’s recovery check to him. “Although we made the bar pay fair compensatory damages, the claim for punitive damages remains open and will proceed against them!”

Keegan & Keegan, Ross & Rosner, LLP
147 N. Ocean Avenue
Patchogue, New York 11772

Albert (not his real name) was injured in 2006 when he was working at a one-family home owned by Mr. L in the Hamptons. Albert was trying to “rip” blocks of lumber that were essentially scraps of two-by- six boards into one-by-six blocks to use to shim the rough opening for a new, pre-hung door to be installed. He was using a table saw that had approximately four inches of exposed blade. He successfully passed the piece through once but had to flip it to cut a corresponding slice on the opposite side of the two-by-six. Predictably, the block jammed in the blade and was spun from the table with the workers hand drawn into the blade. Although the saw had a guard, due to the 5 ½ inches height of the piece, it was not able to cover the blade.

Albert had worked as a helper doing repairs and light construction with Mr. L. at an apartment building he owned in Queens, and on infrequent occasion had done yard work at Mr. L’s personal residence. However on this day Mr. L. claimed Albert was working as a “volunteer” since a relative of Mr. L’s was what he portrayed as convalescing and Mr. L. had planned to allow the relative to use the home in a humanitarian gesture. As a volunteer Albert would not have the protection of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and his comparative negligence could have diminished his recovery significantly.

Mr. L testified he had given Albert adequate instruction in safe use of a table saw along with proper equipment including a plastic ‘feather’ – a long piece used to push a piece of wood through the saw to avoid having the worker’s hand near the moving blade.

Safety Expert Peter Sarich opined the employer failed to comply with various safety mandates called for in the New York State Labor Law and under Federal regulations.

Since Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 allows an injured worker to bring a claim directly against an employer if the latter fails to obtain required workers’ compensation coverage, the plaintiff commenced suit directly against what was concededly his employer. Further, while it was acknowledged his own conduct was very dangerous, plaintiff argued the employer did not have the right to use the employee’s comparative negligence as a defense under the law where he has failed to obtain workers’ compensation coverage.

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and although the Court found there was a question of fact for a jury, the employer’s asserted defense of the worked being a “volunteer for a day” was determined on a motion in favor of the worker. The parties prepared the case for trial.

Plaintiff had approximately $65,000.00 of medical liens on the file. Prior to jury selection the parties settled for $559,900.00 plus the previously paid $5,000.00 from the “med-pay” portion of the policy. In a gesture of magnanimous fairness, plaintiff credited the defendant with $100.00 for interest that had been earned on the med-pay coverage that had been placed in an interest bearing account for the client during the pendency of the action.

Keegan & Keegan, Ross & Rosner, LLP
147 N. Ocean Avenue
Patchogue, New York 11772

We secured the policy limits of $250,000.00 from Allstate Insurance company for a retired Bayman following an intersection accident in which the Allstate insured ran a stop sign.

The firm established that although the Allstate insured tried to push some of the liability onto the retired Bayman, the lawyers for the insurance company were unable to find a chink in the armor of a well planned and vigorous offense. That was the easy part!

Once liability was established, some rather unusual medical evidence was collected, analyzed, and presented which demonstrated that an atypical injury to the periphic nerve resulted in diminished lung capacity.

Although he had been released from the emergency room just hours after the accident with no demonstration of such serious and long lasting injury, topnotch analysis by the seasoned staff guided by Thomas J. Keegan, Jr. (a former clammer himself) resulted in the firm being able to pressure the “ever-stingy” Allstate insurance company to pay the $250,000 policy limits to provide adequate compensation for the unusual injury.

Keegan & Keegan, Ross & Rosner, LLP
147 N. Ocean Avenue
Patchogue, New York 11772

We were able to compensate a young High School student who became the victim of his school’s negligent supervision. The student, a member of the varsity football team, had been diligently running full-contact drills with his teammates when he suffered a traumatically induced nerve injury.

This incident was not the first time the student had been injured while participating in the activities of his school’s football team, and he suffered disc bulges and herniations as a result. These injuries became so severe that he had to undergo spinal-fusion surgery followed by an extensive three months of physical therapy.

We felt that both the school district and his football coach were negligent because they did not properly notify his parents of how severe the injuries he had sustained were. Additionally, they were negligent for allowing him to participate in full-contact drills after a series of injuries, especially since medical clearance was never obtained before allowing our client to return to the team.

Our client relied upon the professionalism and knowledge of his coach to ensure he would not be allowed to come under any harm, but his trust was sadly misplaced, and in the end he suffered serious injuries as a result of this negligence. Fortunately we were able to vigorously fight for our client’s rights.

We established a duty upon the coach and the school district to not only properly notify his parents of the extent to the injuries he suffered while in their care, but also to protect his well-being, making sure it was safe for him to participate in football drills and play in games.

In the end, we were able to obtain $175,000 for the young student. We are grateful to have been able to justly compensate our client for a failure in supervision and care.

Keegan & Keegan, Ross & Rosner, LLP
147 N. Ocean Avenue
Patchogue, New York 11772

The litigation of sports and physical education class injuries is a technical and complex field. It is important that individuals understand that not all injuries that occur in sports and physical education classes are “accidents.” There are obviously certain risks that one assumes when choosing to participate in a certain activity. However, often times the risks associated with an activity are increased due to the negligence of others. The choice to participate, as opposed to a mandatory activity, is also an important factor in determining the assumed liability.

The person entrusted with supervising the activity has certain duties and responsibilities that must be adhered to. Often times children and students are not provided with proper instructions, materials, equipment, or supervision, which can lead to injuries which otherwise may not have occurred. Other times the activity may not be appropriate for the age of the student.

$175,000.00 AWARD TO INJURED HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL PLAYER

Keegan & Keegan, Ross & Rosner recently obtained a sizable award for a high school football player who injured his neck when he hit an opposing player while playing high school football. Several other attorneys never imagined that the true cause of the injury could have been the negligence of the coaching staff. In litigating the case we were able to determine that the player had suffered similar injuries, albeit not as severe, on a minimum of four to five occasions prior to the ultimate injury, which required surgical intervention. Prior injuries had been reported to the coaching staff, yet the student’s parents were never informed. Further, the player was allowed to resume play without proper medical clearance. The actions, or in this case inactions, of the coaching staff clearly subjected the player to a heightened risk of injury which he did not assume.

This case is only one example of numerous cases we have litigated in this field. There are strict time limitations that can come into play with litigation of sports and physical education injuries. Some are as short as 90 days. It is therefore important that people seek legal representation promptly to avoid unnecessary delays and to avoid losing a claim for compensation to which you or someone you care for would otherwise have been entitled

Things are not always as they appear; we are proud to say that thorough investigation and vigorous litigation are among the hallmarks that have made our firm’s reputation well known for over 50 years in Suffolk County and beyond. That reputation brought that student’s parents to our office and made the difference in his ability to recover what was just compensation for his injury.

Feel free to call for a free consultation.

Keegan & Keegan, Ross & Rosner, LLP
147 N. Ocean Avenue
Patchogue, New York 11772

In April of 2009, our client, a high school student named Pedro, was participating in a game of hockey. This game was not part of an organized league; it was merely an activity in his high school physical education class. The game was comprised of two teams, with Pedro on one team and the gym teacher on the other. While two additional students were technically also on each team, they were not actively participating, and the game essentially became a one on one battle between Pedro and the teacher.

Unfortunately, while attempting to score a goal, the gym teacher took a “slap shot,” which is a type of shot in hockey where the stick is raised higher than usual to give it more force and to make it more difficult to stop. When the hockey stick came down to strike the puck, the stick struck Pedro’s hand causing him severe personal injuries. As a result, our firm was retained and a lawsuit against the school district commenced.

Our theory of liability against the school district was based upon negligent supervision. We argued that our client’s participation in the game under those circumstances represented an unreasonable risk of injury to the plaintiff. Furthermore, in taking a slap shot, the teacher violated the rules of the game, which were intended to prevent injuries like the one Pedro suffered. The school district made a motion to dismiss the case claiming we did not offer any evidence that the school or teacher breached their duty to adequately supervise Pedro.

The court agreed with the school district, holding that Pedro’s circumstances were akin to other cases “where the injury causing incident occurs near spontaneously and without any opportunity to intercede to prevent same no matter how diligent and focused the supervision.” In other words, the court felt that the slap shot was a spontaneous incident and could not be avoided. We respectfully disagreed and brought the matter on appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department.

Attorney Jamie G. Rosner orally argued that the acts of the gym teacher could not be spontaneous because he himself performed the slap shot. Moreover, an experienced gym teacher should not be engaging in a one on one hockey game against a student without even ensuring that protective equipment was worn. The Second Department agreed. It held:

The defendants’ submissions raised questions of fact as to whether the conduct of [the gym teacher], who was participating in the game during gym class and was involved in the contact which allegedly injured the plaintiff, constituted proper supervision, as well as whether the alleged negligent supervision was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

Although the fight is not yet over, we are glad to have been able to take this step towards ensuring that Pedro’s injuries are properly compensated for.

In Elrac, Inc. V. Exum, the court rejected the contention of the Uninsured Motorist carrier. The carrier argued that since the accident occurred while the claimant was operating a motor vehicle owned by his employer, a self-insured company, and was in the regular course of his employment, the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law precluded the claimant from arbitrating a claim against his employer.

The court noted that “although petitioner is self-insured, it is required to provide uninsured motorist benefits pursuant to Insurance Law §3420(f)(1).” Thus, the court held, “[g]iven the public policy of this State requiring insurance against injury caused by an uninsured motorist, we find that a self-insured employer is required to provide mandatory uninjured motorist benefits to employees and that the Workers’ Compensation Law does not preclude the employee from filling such a claim against the employer.”

Keegan & Keegan, Ross & Rosner, LLP
147 N. Ocean Avenue
Patchogue, New York 11772