Motor Vehicle Litigation

If the liability is challenged and the liability is disputed, it is necessary to bring a lawsuit. The defendant has the right 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 are responsible for an accident the damages you incur will be reduced based on your percentage of fault. There is a slight exception 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 has to prove that the defendant had the duty of care toward them. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, but those who sit behind the steering wheel of a motor vehicle have an even higher duty to the people in their area of operation. This includes ensuring that they do not cause motor vehicle accidents.

Courtrooms compare an individual's actions to what a typical person would do under the same circumstances to determine reasonable standards of care. This is why expert witnesses are frequently required in cases involving medical malpractice. Experts with more experience in the field could be held to a greater standard of care.

A person's breach of their obligation of care can cause harm to the victim or their property. The victim is then required to prove that the defendant acted in breach of their duty and caused the injury or damages they suffered. Causation is an important part of any negligence claim. It involves proving both the primary and secondary causes of the damage and injury.

If someone is driving through a stop sign then they are more likely to be struck by a vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll have to pay for the repairs. However, the real cause of the crash might be a cut from a brick that later develops into a deadly infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by a defendant is the second aspect of negligence that has to be proved in order to secure compensation in a personal injury claim. A breach of duty is when the actions taken by the at-fault person fall short of what a normal person would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor has a variety of professional duties towards his patients, which stem from the law of the state and licensing authorities. Drivers are obliged to protect other motorists and pedestrians, and obey traffic laws. When a driver breaches this duty of care and causes an accident, he is liable for the victim's injuries.

A lawyer can rely on the "reasonable people" standard to establish that there is a duty of care and then demonstrate that defendant failed to meet this standard with his actions. It is a question of fact for the jury to decide whether the defendant fulfilled the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defendant's negligence was the primary cause of the plaintiff's injuries. It can be more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. For instance, a defendant may have been a motorist who ran a red light, however, the act was not the primary reason for your bicycle crash. For this reason, causation is often contested by defendants in collision cases.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases the plaintiff must establish that there is a causal connection between the defendant's breach and their injuries. For instance, if a plaintiff suffered an injury to his neck in a rear-end collision the lawyer might argue that the accident caused the injury. Other elements that could have caused the collision, such as being in a stationary vehicle, are not culpable, and will not influence the jury's decision to determine the fault.

It could be more difficult to establish a causal link between a negligent act, and the psychological symptoms of the plaintiff. 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 previous unemployment may have some bearing on the severity of the psychological issues suffers from following an accident, but courts generally view these factors as part of the background circumstances 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 attorney (get redirected here) vehicle accident it is essential to speak with a seasoned attorney. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP, have extensive experience in representing clients in personal injury as well as commercial and business litigation, as well as motor vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have developed working relationships with independent physicians in a range of specialties and expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations as well as with private investigators.

Damages

In motor vehicle litigation, a person can recover both economic and noneconomic damages. The first type of damages is the costs of monetary value that are easily added together and calculated as the total amount, which includes medical treatments as well as lost wages, repairs to property, and even financial loss, such diminished earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages like suffering and pain, as well as loss of enjoyment of living cannot be reduced to cash. However, these damages must be proven to exist through extensive evidence, including deposition testimony from the plaintiff's close friends and family members medical records, other expert witness testimony.

In cases that involve multiple defendants, Courts will often use the concept of comparative negligence to decide the percentage of damages awarded should be divided between them. The jury must determine how much fault each defendant was at fault for the accident and to then divide the total damages awarded by that percentage of fault. New York law however, doesn't allow this. 1602 specifically exempts owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule in relation to injuries suffered by driver of these trucks and cars. The process of determining whether the presumption of permissiveness is complicated. Typically, only a clear demonstration that the owner was not able to grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle will be able to overcome the presumption.