motor vehicle accident law firm Vehicle Litigation

When a claim for liability is litigated, it becomes necessary to make a complaint. The defendant then has the opportunity to respond to the complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that, in the event that a jury determines that you are responsible for an accident the damages you incur will be reduced based on your percentage of fault. There is one exception to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes owners of vehicles hired or Motor Vehicle Accident Law Firm leased by minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence case the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was obligated to act with reasonable care. This duty is owed by everyone, but people who operate a vehicle have an even greater duty to other people in their field. This includes ensuring that there are no accidents in motor vehicles.

In courtrooms the quality of care is determined by comparing an individual's behavior to what a normal person would do under similar circumstances. In the event of medical malpractice experts are typically required. People who have superior knowledge in a specific field could be held to a higher standard of care than other individuals in similar situations.

A person's breach of their duty of care could cause harm to a victim, or their property. The victim must establish that the defendant's breach of duty caused the damage and injury they suffered. Proving causation is an essential part of any negligence case which involves taking into consideration both the real cause of the injury or damages as well as the cause of the damage or injury.

For instance, if someone has a red light and is stopped, they'll be struck by another car. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll need to pay for repairs. The reason for an accident could be a brick cut that develops into an infection.

Breach of Duty

The second element of negligence is the breach of duty by the defendant. This must be proven in order to be awarded compensation for a personal injury claim. A breach of duty happens when the actions of a party who is at fault aren't in line with what reasonable people would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor has many professional duties towards his patients. These professional obligations stem from laws of the state and licensing bodies. Drivers are required to be considerate of other drivers and pedestrians, and obey traffic laws. If a driver fails to comply with this duty of care and results in an accident, he is responsible for the injuries suffered by the victim.

A lawyer can rely on the "reasonable persons" standard to prove that there is a duty of caution and then prove that the defendant did not meet this standard in his actions. The jury will decide if the defendant met or did not meet the standard.

The plaintiff must also establish that the breach of duty by the defendant was the primary cause for his or her injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty and breach. For example an individual defendant could have run a red light however, the act wasn't the main cause of your bike crash. This is why the causation issue is often contested by the defendants in cases of crash.

Causation

In motor vehicle accident attorneys vehicle cases the plaintiff must establish a causal link between breach of the defendant and their injuries. For instance, if the plaintiff sustained a neck injury from a rear-end collision the lawyer might argue that the collision caused the injury. Other factors that are essential for the collision to occur, such as being in a stationary vehicle, are not culpable and will not affect the jury's decision of the liability.

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 has a an uneasy childhood, a bad relationship with their parents, was a user of alcohol and drugs, or suffered prior unemployment could have a influence on the severity the psychological issues is suffering from following an accident, however, the courts typically view these elements as part of the context from which the plaintiff's accident resulted rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

It is important to consult an experienced lawyer in the event that you've been involved in a serious accident. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have extensive experience representing clients in motor vehicle accidents, commercial and business litigation, as well as personal injury cases. Our lawyers have established relationships with independent physicians in a range of specialties as well as expert witnesses in accidents reconstruction and computer simulations, and with private investigators.

Damages

In motor vehicle accident law Firm vehicle litigation, a plaintiff may be able to recover both economic and noneconomic damages. The first type of damages is all monetary costs which can be easily added together and calculated as the total amount, which includes medical expenses and lost wages, repairs to property, and even future financial loss, like a diminished earning capacity.

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

In cases involving multiple defendants, Courts will often use rules of comparative negligence to determine how much of the total damages awarded should be divided between them. The jury must decide the percentage of fault each defendant carries for the incident and then divide the total damages awarded by the same percentage. New York law however, does not allow this. 1602 specifically exempts owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule in relation to injuries suffered by driver of these trucks and cars. The resulting analysis of whether the presumption of permissive use is applicable is a bit nebulous and typically only a convincing evidence that the owner was explicitly did not have permission to operate his car will be sufficient to overcome it.