$1.2 Million Verdict for Pedestrian Struck by Cheektowaga Police Vehicle in Crosswalk

On the morning of September 13, 2012, Elaine Golimowski stepped into the crosswalk at the intersection of Borden Road and French Road in Cheektowaga, New York. She had the right of way. A Town of Cheektowaga police officer, Michael J. Sliwinski, was driving an unmarked patrol vehicle on Borden Road. When the traffic signal displayed a green left-turn arrow, Sliwinski began turning onto French Road. He struck Golimowski in the crosswalk, propelling her onto the hood of the vehicle and then to the ground.

Golimowski was 69 years old and retired at the time of the crash. The impact left her with a compressed tibial plateau fracture and fibular head fracture, which required open reduction and internal fixation surgery, along with repair of a torn meniscus. She also suffered compression fractures at the T-8 and T-12 vertebrae, six fractured ribs, a sternum fracture, and a small subarachnoid hemorrhage. She was hospitalized for 11 days and then spent two months in inpatient rehabilitation. She was left dependent on a walker for mobility and continued to experience pain and limited function in daily activities.

William Mattar, PC, with Matthew J. Kaiser of counsel, brought the case against the Town of Cheektowaga and Officer Sliwinski in Supreme Court, Erie County. The firm argued that the officer failed to yield to a pedestrian lawfully using a crosswalk and that the Town bore vicarious liability for his conduct.

After trial, the jury found in Golimowski's favor. It apportioned 75 percent of the fault to the defendants and 25 percent to the plaintiff. On damages, the jury awarded $600,000 for past pain and suffering covering the six years between the crash and the 2018 judgment, and $600,000 for future pain and suffering over a projected ten-year period, for a gross total of $1,200,000.

The defendants appealed. In May 2020, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the judgment in all respects, finding that the jury's apportionment of fault was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and that neither the past nor the future pain and suffering awards were excessive. No reduction was ordered.