Motor Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is required in cases where liability is challenged. The defendant will then be given the opportunity to respond to the complaint.

New York follows pure comparative fault rules, which means that should a jury find you to be the cause of the crash the amount of damages awarded will be reduced by your percentage of negligence. This rule is not applicable to owners of vehicles rented out or leased to minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was bound by the duty of care towards them. This duty is due to all people, however those who drive a vehicle owe an even higher duty to other drivers in their field. This includes not causing accidents in motor vehicle accident lawsuits vehicles.

In courtrooms the standard of care is established by comparing an individual's behavior with what a typical person would do under similar situations. In the event of medical malpractice experts are typically required. Experts with a superior understanding of specific fields could be held to a higher standard of treatment.

If a person violates their duty of care, they could cause injury to the victim or their property. The victim then has to prove that the defendant acted in breach of their duty and caused the injury or damage they sustained. The proof of causation is an essential aspect of any negligence case which involves investigating both the primary causes of the injury damages and the proximate reason for the damage or injury.

For instance, if someone runs a red light, it's likely that they'll be hit by a car. If their car is damaged they'll be responsible for the repairs. But the actual cause of the accident could be a cut from a brick that later develops into a deadly infection.

Breach of Duty

The second aspect of negligence is the breach of duty committed by an individual defendant. This must be proved for compensation for personal injury claims. A breach of duty is when the actions taken by the at-fault party are not in line with what an ordinary person would do under similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor has several professional obligations to his patients, arising from state law and licensing boards. Drivers are obliged to care for other drivers and pedestrians, as well as to obey traffic laws. Any driver who fails to adhere to this obligation and results in an accident is responsible for the injuries of the victim.

A lawyer can use "reasonable individuals" standard to prove that there is a duty of prudence and then show that the defendant failed to meet this standard in his actions. It is a question of fact for the jury to decide whether the defendant complied with the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also prove that the breach of duty of the defendant was the primary cause for his or her injuries. This can be more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. A defendant could have driven through a red light, however, that's not the reason for the crash on your bicycle. Because of this, causation is often contested by the defendants in cases of crash.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff must establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and the injuries. For example, if the plaintiff suffered neck injuries as a result of a rear-end collision and their lawyer will claim that the collision caused the injury. Other factors that are essential in causing the collision like being in a stationary vehicle are not culpable, and do not affect the jury's decision of liability.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between a negligent act and an injured plaintiff's symptoms may be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff suffered from a an uneasy childhood, a bad relationship with their parents, abused alcohol and drugs or previous unemployment may have some influence on the severity the psychological problems he or suffers following a crash, but the courts typically consider these factors as part of the circumstances that led to the accident from which the plaintiff's injury was triggered, not as a separate reason for the injuries.

If you've been involved in a serious Motor Vehicle Accident Law Firms vehicle accident it is essential to consult an experienced attorney. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have extensive experience representing clients in motor vehicle accident, commercial and business litigation, and personal injury cases. Our lawyers have developed working relationships with independent physicians in different areas of expertise as well as experts in computer simulations and reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

The damages that a plaintiff can recover in motor vehicle litigation can include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages is any monetary expenses that can be easily added to calculate an amount, like medical expenses or lost wages, property repair, and even future financial losses like a decrease in earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to seek non-economic damages such as the suffering of others and the loss of enjoyment of life which cannot be reduced to a dollar amount. These damages must be proved by a wide array of evidence, including depositions of family members and friends of the plaintiff medical records, depositions, or other expert witness testimony.

In cases that involve multiple defendants, Courts will often use rules of comparative negligence to determine how much of the total damages award should be allocated between them. The jury must determine the degree of fault each defendant had for the accident, and then divide the total damages awarded by the percentage of blame. New York law however, does not allow this. 1602 does not exempt vehicle owners from the rule of comparative negligence in the event of injuries sustained by drivers of cars or trucks. The method of determining if the presumption is permissive or not is complex. The majority of the time, only a clear demonstration that the owner was not able to grant permission for the driver to operate the vehicle will be able to overcome the presumption.