It didn't seem like anyone else has attempted to answer your question. They just told you to contact an attorney. Private buses must provide insurance for injuries occuring on the bus. This type of insurance is called No-Fault or Personal Injury Protection benefits. Private buses must provide this. However, New Jersey Transit does not provide No-Fault benefits. To get New Jersey transit to pay for your medical bills, you would have to prove that they were at fault. Unlike normal negligence cases, you have to prove a much higher standard of care was violated to recover from NJT. However, if the steps were wet on the bus, you may be able to prove this with the help of a good attorney. A very specific form called a Notice of Claim, must be filed with New Jersey Transit within 90 days of the accident or you will have no right to pursue any claims against them. In addition to your medical bills, if you have suffered a severe permanent injury, you may also be entitled to compensation for your pain and suffering. To give you a more precise answer, you would have to advise the date of your injury and the bus company. Also, whether an incidet report was taken is an important fact for an attorney to know. I hope this helpos you. Feel free to contact me should you have further questions about this.
You really need to contact an experienced and competent personal injury attorney. Most of them, if not all, offer free consultations and no fee until they recover for you. Plus they can contact the hospital on your behalf and better explain the situation, so the bills will be put on hold for the time being. Good luck to you.
The above answer is for general information only. It is not "legal advise" but analysis, and different lawyers may analyze this matter differently, especially if there are additional facts not reflected in the question. I am not your attorney until retained by a written retainer agreement signed by both of us. I am only licensed in California. See also avvo.com terms and conditions item 9, incorporated as if it was reprinted here.
Please feel free to make an appointment for a free legal consultation. There are facts that need to be reviewed in order to provide you with an answer you can rely on.
Please be advised my answers to questions does not constitute legal advise and you should not rely on it, due to the fact that we have never met, I have not been aprised of the facts in you case nor have I reviewed any documents.
I agree with Ms. Naverette as the situation may be more complicated than you think. It could be the bus company, but the bus company could be owned by the State, which menas Title 59 issues. Strongly urge you to get a consult as timelines could bar recovery.
The previous information is solely for informational purposes only. If you have further questions, please contact an attorney in your area for more specific answers. Responding to your question in no way creates an attorney/client relationship, and none of the specific guarantees of privacy exist.
If you have found this information helpful, kindly check the "helpful" box.
I agree with my colleagues that you should consult with an attorney to evaluate the case. I just want to urge you to contact someone soon. If the State owns the bus company, you would have a fairly small window in which you can bring any claim.
Your consultation should certainly be free.
The attorney that you choose will certainly be able to help you coordinate the hospital bills.
Please note that the information provided here is for general informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice as to specific facts or circumstances. You should consult an attorney concerning your particular factual situation and regarding any specific legal questions you may have. No attorney-client relationship is created merely through the exchange of information via this web site. If you would like a legal consultation, feel free to contact me.
I agree with the prior response. In order for you to be able to recover against NJT you would have to file a notice of claim within 90 days from the date of the accident. Also, this would be considered a Title 59 case, and the standard is much higher than ordinary negligence for this type of injury. But if there is enough evidence to meet the threshold you could be successful. If you would like to discuss it further please feel free to contact me offline at:
This response is not legal advice and should be considered as attorney advertising. No attorney client relationship has been formed based on this response.
In Nevada, proprietors owe their invitees a duty to use reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for use
Negligence is never presumed but must be established by substantial evidence. Liability may be found only on proof that defendant had either actual or constructive notice thereof, and when positive evidence is not available to explain presence of such foreign substance, trier of fact is called upon to draw such reasonable inferences as are permitted from evidence of how you where injured.
slip and fall
In the "slip and fall" case involving a foreign substance upon a surface, if evidence is available to establish or permit reasonable inference that its presence was result of conduct by agents or employees of defendant, liability may be found . i.e. if you can show they put it there it is there fault esyer said then done. all persons in this society have an obligation to act reasonably and that an owner or occupier of land should be held to the general duty of reasonable care
Frequently, positive evidence is not available to explain the presence of such foreign substance, and the trier of fact is called upon to draw such reasonable inferences as are permitted from the evidence offered in this regard.liability may be found only on proof that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the stuff on the floor Annot. 61 A.L.R.2d 6, 69.
Duty to maintain
(1) reasonably foreseeable risk (2) there must be a relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and defendant and (3) it must be 'fair, just and reasonable' to impose liability. However, these act as guidelines for the courts in establishing a duty of care; much of the principle is still at the discretion of judges.
The duty to maintain may include, in appropriate circumstances, an obligation toupgrade" facilities that harbor foreseeable hazards by, for instance, installing guardrails.
Agents or employees of defendant
If evidence is available to establish or permit reasonable inference that its presence was result of conduct by agents or employees of defendant, liability may be found upon ordinary agency principles, respondeat superior is applicable, and notice is imputed to defendant,
How long hasirritent the been on the floor before your fall
In the "slip and fall" case, evidence of prior accidents is usually excluded where it relates to a temporary condition which might or might not exist from one day to the other unless there is proper showing that conditions surrounding prior occurrences have continued and persisted. irritent
duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe
Of course a proprietor owes his invited guests a duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for use-the duty of ordinary care. The experience of **50 mankind demands that the illusory standard of ordinary care be applied in a reasonable fashion, and courts generally have done so
'slip and fall' caused by litter, debris, or water
Distinction in the law between a 'slip and fall' caused by litter, debris, (Wagon Wheel v. Mavrogan, 78 Nev. 126, 369 P.2d 688; Eldorado Club v. Graff, 78 Nev. 507, 377 P.2d 174), water (Worth v. Reed, 79 Nev. 351, 384 P.2d 1017), or some other foreign substance upon a floor,
The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Howard Roitman, Esq. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.