![]() Specifically, the State contends that the contractor retained by the State torehabilitate the highway, which involved the opening and closing of HOV lanes on a daily basis,had a reasonable procedure in effect for the inspection of the area. Defendant argues that claimant failed to establish by apreponderance of the credible evidence that the State of New York breached any duty owed toclaimant, or that any action on the State's part was a substantial factor in causing the accidentalleged herein. ![]() Claimant's theory of liability rests on whether the State of New York should be heldliable for an alleged negligent failure to adequately maintain the highway for the safety of thetraveling public by keeping the area free of debris which it knew or should have known wouldcollect and foreseeably endanger drivers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |