Motor Vehicle Litigation

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

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that, in the event that a jury determines you to be responsible for an accident the damages you incur will be reduced according to your percentage of blame. 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 was obligated to act with reasonable care. Nearly everyone owes this obligation to everyone else, however those who take the driving wheel of a motorized vehicle have a higher obligation to others in their area of operation. This includes not causing accidents in motor vehicles.

Courtrooms evaluate an individual's behavior to what a typical person would do under the same circumstances to determine what constitutes a reasonable standard of care. This is why expert witnesses are often required in cases involving medical malpractice. Experts who have a superior understanding of a specific area may also be held to a higher standard of care than other individuals in similar situations.

A breach of a person's duty of care could cause harm to the victim or their property. The victim must show that the defendant violated their duty of care and caused the injury or damages they suffered. The proof of causation is an essential aspect of any negligence claim, and it involves considering both the actual basis of the injury or damages and the proximate cause of the damage or injury.

If a driver is caught running an stop sign, they are likely to be struck by a vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they will be responsible for repairs. But the actual cause of the crash might be a cut in the brick, Vimeo which then develops into a deadly infection.

Breach of Duty

The second element of negligence is the breach of duty committed by a defendant. It must be proven in order to receive compensation for Vimeo personal injury claims. A breach of duty happens when the actions of a party who is at fault fall short of what an average person would do in similar circumstances.

For example, a doctor has several professional duties to his patients that are governed by laws of the state and licensing boards. Drivers are obliged to be considerate of other drivers and pedestrians, and adhere to traffic laws. If a driver fails to comply with this obligation of care and results in an accident, he is accountable for the injuries suffered by the victim.

Lawyers can use the "reasonable persons" standard to show that there is a duty of caution and then prove that the defendant failed to meet this standard in his conduct. It is a question of fact that the jury has to decide if the defendant was in compliance with the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also prove that the defendant's breach was the primary cause of the plaintiff's injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty and breach. For example it is possible that a defendant crossed a red light, but his or her action was not the sole cause of the crash. For this reason, causation is often contested by the defendants in case of a crash.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff must establish a causal link between the defendant's breach of duty and their injuries. If the plaintiff sustained a neck injury in a rear-end collision then his or her attorney would argue that the collision caused the injury. Other factors necessary to cause the collision, vimeo such as being in a stationary vehicle are not considered to be culpable and will not influence the jury’s determination of the cause of the accident.

For psychological injuries However, the connection between a negligent act and the affected plaintiff's symptoms can be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff suffered from a an uneasy childhood, a bad relationship with their parents, experimented with alcohol and drugs or had prior unemployment could have a influence on the severity the psychological issues suffers following an accident, however, the courts typically look at these factors as part of the context that caused the accident in which the plaintiff resulted rather than an independent cause of the injuries.

If you've been involved in an accident involving a motor vehicle that was serious, it is important to speak with a seasoned attorney. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP have years of experience 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 doctors in various specialties, as well experts in computer simulations and reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

The damages that plaintiffs can seek in a little rock motor vehicle accident attorney vehicle lawsuit include both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages comprises any financial costs that can be easily added to calculate the sum of medical treatment, lost wages, property repair, and even future financial losses, like a diminished earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages like pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of living cannot be reduced to cash. The damages must be proven by a wide array of evidence, including depositions from family members and friends of the plaintiff medical records, as well as other expert witness testimony.

In the event of multiple defendants, courts will typically use the comparative fault rule to determine the amount of damages that should be divided between them. The jury has to determine the percentage of fault each defendant is responsible for the accident, and divide the total amount of damages awarded by the same percentage. New York law however, does not permit this. 1602 excludes vehicle owners from the comparative negligence rule in cases where injuries are caused by drivers of cars or trucks. The resulting analysis of whether the presumption of permissive usage applies is complicated and usually only a clear proof that the owner specifically denied permission to operate the car will be sufficient to overcome it.