motor vehicle accident lawsuit Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is necessary when liability is contested. The defendant then has the opportunity 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 crash the damages awarded to you will be reduced by your percentage of negligence. This rule does not apply to the owners of vehicles that are rented out or leased to minors.

Duty of Care

In a case of negligence the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had the duty of care towards them. Most people owe this duty to everyone else, but those who are behind the driving wheel of a motorized vehicle have an even higher duty to the people in their area of operation. This includes ensuring that they do not cause accidents in Motor vehicle accident law firm vehicles.

Courtrooms evaluate an individual's behavior to what a typical individual would do in the same circumstances to determine what constitutes an acceptable standard of care. Expert witnesses are frequently required in cases involving medical malpractice. People with superior knowledge in a certain field may be held to a higher standard of care.

When someone breaches their duty of care, it may cause harm to the victim and/or their property. The victim then has to show that the defendant violated their duty and caused the harm or damages they suffered. Causation is a crucial element of any negligence claim. It involves proving the actual and proximate causes of the damages and injuries.

For instance, if a driver is stopped at a red light then it's likely that they will be hit by another car. If their car is damaged they will be responsible for the repairs. But the actual cause of the crash might be a cut on bricks, which later turn into a potentially dangerous infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by the defendant is the second factor of negligence that must be proved in order to secure compensation in a personal injury suit. A breach of duty is when the actions of the person at fault do not match what a normal person would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for instance, has a variety of professional obligations to his patients that are governed by the law of the state and licensing boards. Motorists owe a duty of care to other motorists and pedestrians to drive safely and obey traffic laws. If a driver violates this obligation of care and causes an accident, he is accountable for the victim's injuries.

A lawyer can use the "reasonable person" standard to establish the existence of an obligation of care. The lawyer must then show that the defendant did not comply with the standard in 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 breach of duty by the defendant 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 run through a red light, however, that's not the reason for your bicycle accident. For this reason, causation is often challenged by the defendants in case of a crash.

Causation

In motor vehicle accident lawyer 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 a neck injury from a rear-end collision and his or her lawyer could argue that the accident caused the injury. Other factors necessary to cause the collision, like being in a stationary car, are not culpable, and won't affect the jury's determination of the cause of the accident.

It could be more difficult to establish a causal connection between an act of negligence and the plaintiff's psychological problems. The fact that the plaintiff had troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with his or her parents, was a user of alcohol and drugs, or motor Vehicle accident law firm suffered prior unemployment could have a influence on the severity the psychological problems he or is suffering from following a crash, but the courts generally view these factors as part of the circumstances from which the plaintiff's accident resulted rather than an independent cause of the injuries.

It is crucial to consult an experienced attorney in the event that you've been involved in a serious car accident. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience representing clients in motor vehicle accidents, commercial and business litigation, and personal injury cases. Our lawyers have built working relationships with independent doctors in various specialties, as well expert witnesses in computer simulations and reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

The damages that plaintiffs can seek in motor vehicle litigation include both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages encompasses all financial costs that can easily be summed up and calculated into an overall amount, including medical expenses and lost wages, repairs to property, and even the possibility of future financial loss, for instance loss of earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to recover non-economic damages such as pain and suffering as well as loss of enjoyment of life which cannot be reduced to a monetary amount. These damages must be proved 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 cases involving 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 will determine the proportion of fault each defendant has for the accident and then divide the total damages awarded by that percentage. However, New York law 1602 specifically excludes owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule in relation to injuries sustained by drivers of those cars and trucks. The subsequent analysis of whether the presumption that permissive use applies is not straightforward, and typically only a clear showing that the owner has explicitly refused permission to operate the vehicle will overcome it.