Motor Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is necessary when liability is contested. The defendant then has the chance to respond to the complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that, in the event that a jury determines that you were at fault for an accident and you are found to be at fault, your damages will be reduced according to your percentage of fault. This rule does not apply to owners of vehicles that are leased or rented to minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed them a duty to exercise reasonable care. This duty is owed to all, but those who operate a vehicle have an even greater obligation to others in their field. This includes not causing accidents in motor vehicle accident vehicles.

Courtrooms assess an individual's actions to what a typical person would do in similar circumstances to establish what is reasonable standards of care. In cases of medical malpractice experts are often required. Experts with a higher level of expertise in a specific field could also be held to a higher standard of care than others in similar situations.

If a person violates their duty of care, it could cause harm to the victim and/or their property. The victim has to show that the defendant's infringement of their duty led to the injury and damages that they sustained. Causation proof is a crucial part of any negligence case, and it involves considering both the actual basis of the injury or damages and the proximate reason for the damage or injury.

If someone is driving through the stop sign and fails to obey the stop sign, they could be struck by a vehicle. If their car is damaged, they will have to pay for the repairs. However, the real cause of the crash could be a cut on bricks that later develop into a dangerous infection.

Breach of Duty

A defendant's breach of duty is the second aspect of negligence that has to be proved in order to secure compensation in a personal injury lawsuit. A breach of duty occurs when the at-fault party's actions do not match what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor has many professional duties towards his patients. These professional obligations stem from the law of the state and licensing authorities. Motorists owe a duty care to other motorists and pedestrians to drive safely and obey traffic laws. If a driver fails to comply with this obligation of care and creates an accident, he is accountable for the injuries sustained by the victim.

A lawyer can use "reasonable individuals" standard to prove that there is a duty of caution and then demonstrate that defendant failed to meet this standard in his actions. It is a matter of fact that the jury has to decide whether the defendant was in compliance with the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also establish that the breach of duty of the defendant was the main cause of the injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty and breach. A defendant could have driven through a red light however, that's not the reason for the accident on your bicycle. The issue of causation is often challenged in a crash case by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle accidents, the plaintiff must prove a causal link between the defendant's breach and their injuries. For example, if the plaintiff sustained a neck injury from an accident that involved rear-ends, his or her lawyer will claim that the collision caused the injury. Other factors that are needed to produce the collision, motor Vehicle accident attorney like being in a stationary vehicle are not culpable and will not affect the jury's determination of liability.

It is possible to establish a causal connection between a negligent action and the plaintiff's psychological symptoms. The fact that the plaintiff had troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with his or her parents, abused alcohol and drugs, or suffered prior unemployment could have a impact on the severity of the psychological issues she suffers after a crash, but the courts typically view these elements as part of the circumstances that caused the accident in which the plaintiff arose rather than an independent cause of the injuries.

If you have been in a serious motor vehicle crash, it is important to speak with an experienced attorney. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP, have extensive experience in representing clients in personal injury as well as commercial and business litigation, and Motor vehicle Accident attorney vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have established working relationships with independent physicians in many areas of expertise as well as expert witnesses in computer simulations and reconstruction of accident.

Damages

The damages a plaintiff can recover in motor vehicle litigation can include both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages comprises any financial expenses that can be easily added to calculate a total, for example, medical expenses, lost wages, property repairs, and even future financial losses like a decrease in earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages like pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment are not able to be reduced to financial value. However the damages must be established to exist by a variety of evidence, including deposition testimony of the plaintiff's close friends and motor vehicle accident attorney family members medical records, other expert witness testimony.

In the event of multiple defendants, courts often use comparative fault rules to determine the amount of damages to be split between them. The jury has to determine the percentage of blame each defendant has for the incident and then divide the total damages awarded by that percentage. However, New York law 1602 specifically exempts owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule when it comes to injuries sustained by drivers of these trucks and cars. The method of determining if the presumption is permissive is complicated. Typically it is only a clear evidence that the owner denied permission for the driver to operate the vehicle will overcome the presumption.