Motor Vehicle Litigation

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

New York follows pure comparative fault rules which means that should a jury find you responsible for the accident the amount of damages awarded will be reduced by your percentage of negligence. There is an exception to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes owners of vehicles that are rented or leased to minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence lawsuit the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant was obligated to exercise reasonable care. Nearly everyone owes this obligation to everyone else, however those who take the steering wheel of a motor vehicle have a greater obligation to others in their area of operation. This includes not causing accidents in brookhaven motor Vehicle accident Lawyer vehicles.

In courtrooms, the standards of care are determined by comparing an individual's behavior with what a normal person would do under similar circumstances. This is why expert witnesses are frequently required in cases involving medical malpractice. Experts who have a superior understanding of a specific area may be held to an higher standard of care than other people in similar situations.

A breach of a person's duty of care may cause harm to a victim, or their property. The victim then has to prove that the defendant acted in breach of their duty and caused the harm or damage that they suffered. Causation is a crucial element of any negligence claim. It requires proof of both the proximate and actual causes of the damages and injuries.

If a driver is caught running a stop sign then they are more likely to be struck by another vehicle. If their car is damaged they'll be accountable for repairs. The reason for an accident could be a brick cut which develops into an infection.

Breach of Duty

A defendant's breach of duty is the second factor of negligence that must be proved in order to receive compensation in a personal injury suit. A breach of duty is when the actions taken by the at-fault party do not match what a normal person would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor has several professional obligations to his patients stemming from laws of the state and licensing boards. Motorists owe a duty of care to other drivers and pedestrians to be safe and follow traffic laws. Any driver who fails to adhere to this obligation and causes an accident is accountable for the victim's injuries.

A lawyer can rely on the "reasonable individuals" standard to demonstrate that there is a duty of caution and then demonstrate that defendant failed to meet this standard in his conduct. The jury will decide if the defendant fulfilled or did not meet the standard.

The plaintiff must also prove that the breach of duty by the defendant was the primary cause of the plaintiff's injuries. This can be more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. For example it is possible that a defendant crossed a red line, but the action was not the primary cause of the crash. Causation is often contested in a crash case by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and their injuries. If a plaintiff suffers a neck injury in a rear-end accident, his or her attorney will argue that the crash caused the injury. Other factors that are essential for the collision to occur, such as being in a stationary car, are not culpable and will not affect the jury's determination of liability.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between an act of negligence and an injured plaintiff's symptoms may be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff had an unhappy childhood, a poor relationship with their parents, was a user of alcohol and drugs or had previous unemployment may have some bearing on the severity of the psychological issues she suffers after an accident, however, the courts typically view these elements as an element of the background conditions from which the plaintiff's accident arose rather than an independent cause of the injuries.

If you have been in a serious motor vehicle accident it is essential to consult an experienced attorney. The attorneys at Arnold & Clifford, LLP have years of experience representing clients in personal injury cases, business and commercial litigation, and atmore motor vehicle accident lawsuit vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have established working relationships with independent medical professionals in a range of specialties and expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations, as well as with private investigators.

Damages

The damages a plaintiff can recover in a motor vehicle case include both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages includes any monetary expenses that can be easily added up and calculated as a total, for example, medical expenses or lost wages, property repair and even future financial losses such as diminished earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages like suffering and pain, as well as loss of enjoyment of life cannot be reduced to cash. However these damages must be established to exist by a variety of evidence, such as deposition testimony of the plaintiff's close family members and friends, medical records, and other expert witness testimony.

In cases that involve multiple defendants, Courts will often use the rules of comparative negligence to determine how much of the damages award should be allocated between them. The jury must determine the degree of fault each defendant had for the accident and to then divide the total amount of damages by the percentage of fault. New York law however, does not allow for this. 1602 specifically excludes owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule with respect to injuries sustained by the driver of those cars and trucks. The analysis to determine whether the presumption is permissive is complex. Most of the time, only a clear demonstration that the owner was not able to grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle will be sufficient to overturn the presumption.