Motor Vehicle Litigation

When a claim for liability is litigated then it is necessary to make a complaint. The Defendant has the right 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 at fault for an accident and you are found to be at fault, your damages will be reduced based on your percentage of blame. There is an exception to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes owners of vehicles rented or leased by minors.

Duty of Care

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

In courtrooms, the standard of care is established by comparing an individual's actions with what a normal person would do in similar conditions. This is why expert witnesses are often required in cases involving medical negligence. Experts with a superior understanding of particular fields may be held to a higher standard of treatment.

When someone breaches their duty of care, it may cause harm to the victim and/or their property. The victim has to show that the defendant violated their duty and caused the injury or damages they suffered. Proving causation is a critical part of any negligence case which involves taking into consideration both the real causes of the injury damages as well as the cause of the damage or injury.

For instance, if a person runs a red stop sign then it's likely that they will be hit by a car. If their car is damaged, they will need to pay for repairs. The reason for the crash could be a cut in a brick that later develops into a deadly infection.

Breach of Duty

The second element of negligence is the breach of duty committed by the defendant. This must be proved in order to receive compensation for a personal injury claim. A breach of duty is when the actions taken by the at-fault party do not match what an ordinary person would do under similar circumstances.

A doctor, for instance, has a number of professional obligations towards his patients, which stem from the law of the state and licensing authorities. Drivers are bound to protect other motorists and pedestrians, and obey traffic laws. Any driver who fails to adhere to this obligation and results in an accident is responsible for the injuries of the victim.

Lawyers can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of the duty of care, and then show that the defendant failed to meet that standard in his actions. The jury will determine if the defendant met or did not meet the standards.

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. For instance an individual defendant could have run a red light but it's likely that his or her actions wasn't the proximate cause of your bicycle crash. The issue of causation is often challenged in crash cases by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff must establish a causal link between the defendant's breach of duty and their injuries. For instance, if a plaintiff sustained an injury to the neck as a result of an accident that involved rear-ends, his or her lawyer will argue that the collision caused the injury. Other elements that are required to cause the collision, such as being in a stationary vehicle are not considered to be culpable and therefore do not affect the jury's determination of the liability.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between a negligent act and the victim's afflictions may be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff suffered from a troubles in his or her childhood, lawyers had a difficult relationship with his or her parents, was a user of alcohol and drugs or had previous unemployment may have some impact on the severity of the psychological issues he or suffers from following an accident, but courts typically view these elements as an element of the background conditions that caused the accident in which the plaintiff arose rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

If you have been in a serious motor vehicle crash it is crucial to consult an experienced attorney. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP, Lawyers have extensive experience in representing clients in personal injury commercial and business litigation, and motor vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have established relationships with independent physicians with a variety of specialties including expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations as well as with private investigators.

Damages

In motor vehicle litigation, a person can recover both economic and noneconomic damages. The first category of damages is all costs that can easily be added up and then calculated into the total amount, which includes medical expenses as well as lost wages, repairs to property, and even future financial losses, such as the loss of earning capacity.

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

In the event of multiple defendants, courts often use comparative fault rules to determine the amount of damages that must be divided between them. The jury must decide the amount of fault each defendant is accountable for the accident and then divide the total amount of damages awarded by the same percentage. However, New York law 1602 does not exempt vehicle owners from the comparative negligence rule in the event of injuries suffered by drivers of cars or trucks. The subsequent analysis of whether the presumption of permissive use applies is complex and usually only a clear proof that the owner has explicitly did not have permission to operate his vehicle will be able to overcome it.