Motor Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is required when liability is contested. The defendant has the option to respond to the Complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that should a jury find you to be at fault for an accident the amount of damages you will be reduced based on your percentage of blame. There is a caveat to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes the owners of vehicles that are rented or leased by minors.

Duty of Care

In a case of negligence the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was bound by the duty of care toward them. This duty is owed by all people, however those who operate a vehicle owe an even greater obligation to other drivers in their field. This includes ensuring that they do not cause accidents in motor vehicles.

Courtrooms examine an individual's conduct to what a typical person would do under the same conditions to determine reasonable standards of care. In cases of medical malpractice experts are often required. Experts with more experience in specific fields could be held to a higher standard of care.

If someone violates their duty of care, they could cause harm to the victim and/or their property. The victim has to demonstrate that the defendant did not fulfill their duty of care and caused the injury or damage they sustained. The proof of causation is an essential part of any negligence case, and it involves considering both the actual cause of the injury or damages and the proximate reason for the injury or damage.

If someone is driving through an intersection and fails to obey the stop sign, they could be hit by a car. If their vehicle is damaged, they will be responsible for repairs. The reason for the crash might be a cut from bricks that later develop into a potentially dangerous infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by a defendant is the second factor of negligence that must be proved to obtain compensation in a personal injury suit. A breach of duty occurs when the actions of the at-fault person fall short of what a normal person would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor has many professional obligations to his patients, which stem from laws of the state and licensing bodies. Motorists owe a duty of care to other drivers and pedestrians to drive safely and obey traffic laws. If a driver violates this duty and results in an accident is responsible for the injuries sustained by the victim.

Lawyers can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to establish the existence of a duty of care and then prove that the defendant failed to satisfy the standard through his actions. It is a matter of fact that the jury has to decide whether the defendant complied with the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also establish that the breach of duty of the defendant was the primary cause of his or her injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. A defendant may have run through a red light, but that's not what caused the crash on your bicycle. This is why the causation issue is often contested by the defendants in cases of crash.

Causation

In danbury motor vehicle accident lawyer vehicle accidents, the plaintiff must establish a causal link between the breach of the defendant and their injuries. For instance, if the plaintiff suffered neck injuries as a result of an accident that involved rear-ends the lawyer will claim that the collision caused the injury. Other elements that are required in causing the collision like being in a stationary vehicle, are not culpable and will not affect the jury's determination of the liability.

For psychological injuries However, the connection between negligence and the injured plaintiff's symptoms may be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff has a troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with his or her parents, abused alcohol and drugs, or attorneys suffered prior unemployment could have a bearing on the severity of the psychological problems he or suffers following an accident, however, the courts typically look at these factors as an element of the background conditions that led to the accident from which the plaintiff's injury occurred, rather than as an independent reason for the injuries.

It is essential to speak with an experienced attorney should you be involved in a serious car accident. The attorneys at Arnold & Clifford, LLP, have extensive experience in representing clients in personal injury commercial and business litigation, as well as motor vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have developed working relationships with independent physicians in a wide range of specialties and expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations, and with private investigators.

Damages

The damages a plaintiff can recover in a motor vehicle lawsuit include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages covers any monetary costs that can easily be added up and calculated as a sum, such as medical expenses loss of wages, property repair and even future financial losses, like diminished earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to recover non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment, which cannot be reduced to a monetary amount. However the damages must be proven to exist through extensive evidence, including deposition testimony of the plaintiff's close friends and family members medical records, other expert witness testimony.

In cases where there are multiple defendants, courts will typically apply the rules of comparative fault to determine the amount of damages to be divided between them. The jury must decide the amount of fault each defendant carries for the accident and then divide the total damages awarded by the percentage. New York law however, does not permit this. 1602 disqualifies vehicle owners from the comparative negligence rule in the event of injuries sustained by the drivers of cars or trucks. The resulting analysis of whether the presumption of permissive use applies is not straightforward, and typically only a clear evidence that the owner was explicitly denied permission to operate the vehicle will be able to overcome it.