He may be entitled to PIP...
But would then be forced to prove that his injuries satisfy the "serious injury" threshold which may be a hurdle in a soft tissue lumbar claim.
Exactly why he needs an attorney.
There is no PIP and no no-fault he was not using the vehicle within the meaning of the no fault laws. Believe me I know I do no fault collections. This is a slip and fall.
Well, not the first time we may disagree :)
The facts are in the details.
I believe Mr. Adams was referring to the argument that Mr. Fall in Bayside was "unloading " his vehicle, which may be covered under the No Fault law depending on the specific facts. This would likely be a stretch, and because the defective hole presumably caused the fall and not something related to the car, the argument may not fly. However it is a worthy line of reasoning if the potential benefits tied to a valid no-fault claim (ie. medical coverage) outweigh the onus of the serious injury threshold.
In case you guys are interested, there was a Court of Appeals case decided 6 weeks which discussed the degree of relationship needed to "operation of a vehicle" to come under no fault laws. See Cividanes v City of New York
Yes I am fully aware of this decision the other half of my practice is no fault collections and this is not a no fault matter - which is actually better because you don't have the threshold issue. If any lawyers here need a no fault collection attorney for their client plaintiff's give me a call.
Just trying to be helpful Michael.
I agree that it is not a no fault accident or PIP case as it does not arise out of the use or operation of a vehicle and the vehicle was not the instrumentality that caused the incident.
As I originally said, the devil is in the details. Cividanes, at least to the majority, was not "use or operation"; having fully alighted from the bus.