Preview:

Decided on May 7, 2007
Ct Cl

110668

For Claimant:
Altier & Vogt, LLC
by: Philip P. Vogt, Esq.
For Defendant:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
by: Victor J. D'Angelo, AAG

This is the decision following the liability trial of the claim of Wallace D. Watson, II, that the defendant State of New York was negligently responsible for his accident while bicycling on State property. On the night of November 20, 2001, Mr. Watson left his home on Barrow Street in Manhattan and rode his bike west toward the Hudson River, and then eventually south along a temporary path that was for the use of bicyclists, walkers, joggers and rollerbladers etc. (cl exh 3).
Just south of Pier 40, which was the extension of West Houston Street, claimant collided with a sign and was thrown off his bike:
Q. What happened after you pedaled past the southern end of the Pier 40 building structure?
A. Something struck my face and I was knocked off balance, and came in contact with the sign that I fell on top of.
It was, Watson recalls, about 10 p.m. Claimant was riding alone, and there were no witnesses; [*2]no accident report was filed with the authorities.
Mr. Watson does not ground his case on the condition of the surface of the bikeway, or on the existence and placement of the sign or any pavement markings or lack thereof. What claimant does put at issue is the amount of artificial illumination cast onto the bikeway.[FN1] Claimant testified that he hit the sign because it was dark, and that he was unaware of the sign until he struck it. However, he did not offer expert testimony as to what strength light at what distance it would take to supply proper illumination and the recognized or applicable standards or regulations that obtain.
Mr. Watson described the sign as a metal placard about three feet high and two feet wide, attached to a metal pole with a weighted base, elevated several feet above the ground, and with a "reflective coating." Claimant's exhibit 4, taken by Watson or his roommate a few days after the accident, is a nighttime photograph looking south toward the sign. Claimant's 4 was not a close-up shot, and yet the sign is visible. Defendant offered exhibit A, a photograph in which the sign is crisper and more visible, and which was taken by claimant or his roommate at the same time.
Claimant's accident occurred during the construction work that was known as the Route 9A/Westside Highway Project, which extended from West 57th Street to the southern tip of Manhattan. The State's engineer-in-charge for a portion thereof, namely segment three, was Craig
The project was broken into six segments physically, and was built over time in four stages. Segment three began north of Houston Street at Clarkson Street and ran south for about three

Download 2007_51134.pdf

New York Law