motor vehicle accident law firm Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is required when the liability is being contested. The Defendant will then have the opportunity to respond to the complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that should a jury find that you were at fault for an accident, your damages will be reduced according to your percentage of fault. This rule does not apply to owners of vehicles rented out or leased to minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence lawsuit the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed them a duty to act with reasonable care. Nearly everyone owes this obligation to everyone else, but those who sit behind the car have a higher obligation to the people in their area of operation. This includes ensuring that they do not cause accidents in motor vehicles.

In courtrooms, the quality of care is determined by comparing the actions of an individual against what a normal individual would do under similar circumstances. In cases of medical malpractice expert witnesses are typically required. Experts with more experience in particular fields may be held to a higher standard of care.

When a person breaches their duty of care, it may cause damage to the victim as well as their property. The victim has to prove that the defendant breached their duty and caused the injury or damage they sustained. Causation is a key element of any negligence claim. It involves proving both the proximate and actual causes of the damage and injury.

For instance, if a driver has a red light, it's likely that they will be hit by a car. If their car is damaged, they'll need to pay for repairs. The reason for the crash might be a cut in a brick that later develops into a serious infection.

Breach of Duty

The second element of negligence is the breach of duty by the defendant. It must be proven for compensation for personal injury claims. A breach of duty is when the actions taken by the at-fault person are insufficient to what an ordinary person would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor is a professional with a range of professional obligations to his patients, which stem from the law of the state and licensing bodies. Drivers are bound to be considerate of other drivers and pedestrians, and to follow traffic laws. When a driver breaches this obligation of care and causes an accident, he is liable for the injury suffered by the victim.

A lawyer may use the "reasonable individuals" standard to demonstrate that there is a duty to be cautious and then show that defendant did not comply with this standard with his actions. It is a question of fact for the jury to decide if the defendant complied with the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also establish that the defendant's breach of duty was the proximate cause of the injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. A defendant could have run through a red light but that's not the cause of your bicycle accident. Because of this, causation is often contested by the defendants in cases of crash.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and his or her injuries. If a plaintiff suffers neck injuries in a rear-end accident the attorney for the plaintiff would argue that the collision was the cause of the injury. Other factors that are necessary to cause the collision, such as being in a stationary vehicle are not culpable and will not influence the jury's determination of the degree of fault.

For psychological injuries However, the connection between a negligent act and an injured plaintiff's symptoms may be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff has a an unhappy childhood, Corpus Christi Motor Vehicle Accident Lawsuit a poor relationship with his or her parents, experimented with drugs and alcohol or experienced previous unemployment may have some influence on the severity the psychological problems he or is suffering from following an accident, but courts typically consider these factors as an element of the background conditions that caused the accident was triggered, not as a separate cause of the injuries.

If you've been involved in an accident that is serious to your vehicle it is essential to consult an experienced attorney. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience representing clients in motor vehicle accidents, commercial and business litigation, as well as personal injury cases. Our lawyers have formed working relationships with independent physicians in a range of specialties and expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations, and with private investigators.

Damages

The damages plaintiffs can claim in a huntsville motor vehicle accident attorney vehicle case include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages includes all monetary costs which can easily be summed up and calculated into a total, such as medical expenses, lost wages, repairs to property, and even the possibility of future financial loss, such diminished earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to recover non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment, xilubbs.xclub.tw which cannot be reduced to a dollar amount. The damages must be proven through extensive evidence like depositions of family members and friends of the plaintiff medical records, as well as other expert witness testimony.

In cases that involve multiple defendants, Courts will often use the concept of comparative negligence to decide how much of the damages award should be allocated between them. This requires the jury to determine how much responsibility each defendant had for the accident and to then divide the total amount of damages by that percentage of fault. However, New York law 1602 specifically excludes owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule with respect to injuries suffered by driver of those cars and trucks. The resulting analysis of whether the presumption of permissiveness is applicable is a bit nebulous and usually only a clear proof that the owner has explicitly did not have permission to operate his car will be sufficient to overcome it.