Motor Vehicle Litigation

If liability is contested in court, it becomes necessary to start a lawsuit. The defendant has the right to respond to the complaint.

New York follows pure comparative fault rules and, in the event that a jury finds you to be the cause of the accident the damages awarded to you will be reduced by your percentage of negligence. This rule is not applicable to owners of vehicles that are leased or rented to minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence case the plaintiff must show that the defendant was obligated to act with reasonable care. Nearly everyone owes this obligation to everyone else, but those who are behind the driving wheel of a motorized vehicle have a higher obligation to other people in their field of activity. This includes not causing accidents in motor Vehicle accident Lawyers vehicles.

In courtrooms the standard of care is established by comparing an individual's behavior with what a typical person would do in similar circumstances. Expert witnesses are often required in cases involving medical malpractice. People who have superior knowledge in a specific field could be held to an higher standard of care than other individuals in similar situations.

If a person violates their duty of care, they could cause damage to the victim as well as their property. The victim must establish that the defendant's breach of their duty caused the damage and injury they suffered. Proving causation is an essential part of any negligence case and requires looking at both the actual basis of the injury or damages, as well as the causal cause of the damage or injury.

For instance, if someone is stopped at a red light and is stopped, they'll be struck by another car. If their vehicle is damaged, they will be responsible for Motor Vehicle Accident Lawyers repairs. The cause of an accident could be a brick cut that causes an infection.

Breach of Duty

The second aspect of negligence is the breach of duty by an individual defendant. This must be proved in order to be awarded compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty occurs when the actions of a party who is at fault do not match what an average person would do in similar circumstances.

For example, a doctor has a variety of professional obligations to his patients, arising from the law of the state and licensing boards. Drivers have a duty to care for other drivers and pedestrians, and to adhere to traffic laws. If a driver violates this duty of care and creates an accident, he is liable for the victim's injuries.

A lawyer may use the "reasonable person" standard to establish the existence of the duty of care, and then prove that the defendant failed to satisfy the standard through his actions. The jury will determine if the defendant met or did not meet the standards.

The plaintiff must also establish that the defendant's breach of duty was the primary cause for his or her injuries. It can be more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. A defendant may have run through a red light, however, that's not the reason for the bicycle accident. The issue of causation is often challenged in crash cases by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle accident attorney vehicle-related cases, the plaintiff must prove that there is a causal connection between the breach by the defendant and their injuries. If a plaintiff suffers neck injuries as a result of an accident that involved rear-end collisions, his or her attorney would argue that the accident was the cause of the injury. Other factors that are necessary for the collision to occur, such as being in a stationary vehicle, are not culpable and will not affect the jury's determination of liability.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between a negligent act and an affected plaintiff's symptoms can be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff had a troubled childhood, poor relationship with his or her parents, abused drugs and alcohol or experienced prior unemployment could have a impact on the severity of the psychological issues he or suffers following an accident, however, the courts generally view these factors as part of the background circumstances from which the plaintiff's accident was triggered, not as a separate reason for the injuries.

If you have been in a serious motor vehicle accident it is essential to speak with a seasoned attorney. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience representing clients in motor vehicle accidents cases, business and commercial litigation, and personal injury cases. Our lawyers have established working relationships with independent physicians in a variety of specialties, as well experts in computer simulations as well as reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

The damages plaintiffs can seek in a motor vehicle case include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages comprises any financial expenses that can be easily added up and calculated as the sum of medical expenses or lost wages, property repair, and even future financial losses like a diminished earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages such as pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment can't be reduced to money. The proof of these damages is through extensive evidence such as depositions from family members and friends of the plaintiff medical records, depositions, or other expert witness testimony.

In cases where there are multiple defendants, courts will typically employ comparative fault rules to determine the amount of damages that should be divided between them. This requires the jury to determine how much responsibility each defendant was responsible for the accident and 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 in relation to injuries suffered by driver of these trucks and cars. The process of determining whether the presumption of permissiveness is complicated. Typically there is only a clear proof that the owner was not able to grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle can be sufficient to overturn the presumption.