Motor Vehicle Accident Lawyers Vehicle Litigation

If liability is contested in court, it becomes necessary to make a complaint. The defendant will then be given the opportunity to respond to the complaint.

New York follows pure comparative fault rules which means that when a jury finds you responsible for the crash the damages awarded will be reduced by the percentage of negligence. There is one exception to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes the owners of vehicles that are rented or leased by minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed them a duty to act with reasonable care. This duty is due to all people, however those who operate vehicles owe an even greater obligation to others in their field. This includes ensuring that they do not cause accidents in motor vehicles.

In courtrooms, the standard of care is determined by comparing an individual's actions against what a normal individual would do under similar situations. This is why expert witnesses are frequently required in cases involving medical malpractice. Experts who have a superior understanding of a specific area may be held to an even higher standard of care than others in similar situations.

If a person violates their duty of care, it could cause damage to the victim as well as their property. The victim is then required to establish that the defendant's breach of their duty caused the damage and injury they sustained. Causation is a key element of any negligence claim. It requires proof of both the actual and proximate causes of the injuries and damages.

If a person is stopped at an stop sign, they are likely to be hit by another vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they will be responsible for repairs. The cause of the crash could be a brick cut which develops into an infection.

Breach of Duty

The second element of negligence is the breach of duty by an individual defendant. It must be proven in order to receive compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty occurs when the actions of the person who is at fault fall short of what an ordinary person would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor has many professional obligations towards his patients that are derived from state law and licensing bodies. Motorists are required to show care to other motorists and pedestrians to drive safely and obey traffic laws. If a driver violates this duty of care and results in an accident, he is responsible for the injuries sustained by the victim.

A lawyer can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of an obligation of care. The lawyer must then demonstrate that the defendant did not satisfy the standard through his actions. It is a question of fact that the jury has to decide whether the defendant was in compliance with the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defendant's negligence was the direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries. It is more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. A defendant could have driven through a red light, however, that's not the reason for the bicycle accident. Causation is often contested in crash cases by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle accidents vehicle cases the plaintiff must establish that there is a causal connection between the breach of the defendant and their injuries. If the plaintiff sustained neck injuries in an accident that involved rear-end collisions the attorney for the plaintiff will argue that the crash caused the injury. Other elements that could have caused the collision, such as being in a stationary vehicle, are not culpable, and won't affect the jury's determination of the cause of the accident.

It may be harder to prove a causal link between a negligent act, and the psychological symptoms of the plaintiff. The fact that the plaintiff has a an uneasy childhood, a bad relationship with their parents, experimented with alcohol and drugs or had prior unemployment could have a bearing on the severity of the psychological issues he or suffers following an accident, but courts typically view these elements as an element of the background conditions that caused the accident in which the plaintiff resulted rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

If you've been involved in an accident involving a motor vehicle that was serious It is imperative to consult with an experienced attorney. The attorneys at Arnold & Clifford, LLP have years of experience representing clients in personal injury cases, business and commercial litigation, as well as motor vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have developed relationships with independent physicians across a variety of specialties including expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations as well with private investigators.

Damages

The damages that plaintiffs can claim in a motor vehicle lawsuit include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages comprises any financial costs that can be easily added to calculate the sum of medical expenses loss of wages, property repair and even future financial losses like a diminished earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to seek non-economic damages, such as suffering and pain, as well as loss of enjoyment, which cannot be reduced to a dollar amount. However these damages must be proved to exist using extensive evidence, including deposition testimony from the plaintiff's close family members and friends medical records, other expert witness testimony.

In the event of multiple defendants, courts typically use the comparative fault rule to determine the amount of total damages that should be divided between them. The jury has to determine the percentage of blame each defendant is responsible for the accident and then divide the total amount of damages awarded by the percentage. However, New York law 1602 specifically excludes owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule with respect to injuries sustained by drivers of these vehicles and trucks. The method of determining if the presumption of permissiveness is complicated. The majority of the time there is only a clear proof that the owner did not grant permission for the driver to operate the vehicle will overcome the presumption.