Nashville Motor Vehicle Accident Lawyer Vehicle Litigation

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

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that, when a jury finds that you were at fault for an accident the amount of damages you will be reduced based on your percentage of fault. There is a slight 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 suit the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant was obligated to act with reasonable care. Nearly everyone owes this obligation to everyone else, however those who sit behind the car have a higher obligation to other people in their field of operation. This includes ensuring that there are no accidents in motor vehicles.

Courtrooms evaluate an individual's behavior with what a normal person would do in similar circumstances to establish what is reasonable standards of care. In the event of medical malpractice experts are typically required. Experts who are knowledgeable in a particular field can also be held to a higher standard of care than other individuals in similar situations.

If someone violates their duty of care, it may cause injury to the victim or their property. The victim must prove that the defendant acted in breach of their duty of care and caused the injury or damage they sustained. The proof of causation is an essential aspect of any negligence claim and requires considering both the actual cause of the injury or damages as well as the cause of the damage or injury.

If a driver is caught running the stop sign, they are likely to be struck by a vehicle. If their car is damaged they'll be accountable for repairs. The cause of a crash could be caused by a brick cut that develops into an infection.

Breach of Duty

The second element of negligence is the breach of duty committed by an individual defendant. This must be proved in order to be awarded compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty occurs when the actions of the at-fault party fall short of what an ordinary person would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for instance, has several professional duties to his patients based on laws of the state and licensing boards. Motorists owe a duty of care to other motorists and pedestrians to drive safely and obey traffic laws. Drivers who violate this obligation and causes an accident is accountable for the injuries suffered by the victim.

A lawyer can use "reasonable persons" standard to prove that there is a duty to be cautious and then demonstrate that defendant did not comply with this standard in his conduct. It is a matter of fact for the jury to decide if the defendant fulfilled the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also prove that the defendant's negligence was the sole cause of the plaintiff's injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty and breach. A defendant could have run through a red light, but that's not the cause of your bicycle accident. Causation is often contested in cases of crash by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and their injuries. If the plaintiff suffered neck injuries in an accident that involved rear-end collisions, his or her attorney would argue that the collision caused the injury. Other factors that are needed in causing the collision like being in a stationary vehicle are not culpable and will not affect the jury's decision of liability.

For psychological injuries However, the connection between an act of negligence and an injured plaintiff's symptoms could be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff suffered from a an unhappy childhood, a poor relationship with his or her parents, used alcohol and drugs or had previous unemployment may have some influence on the severity the psychological issues he or she suffers after a crash, but the courts generally view these factors as an element of the background conditions that caused the accident in which the plaintiff was triggered, not as a separate reason for the injuries.

If you have been in a serious gainesville motor vehicle accident lawyer vehicle crash it is essential to speak with a seasoned attorney. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience representing clients in motor vehicle accident cases, business and commercial litigation, as well as personal injury cases. Our lawyers have established working relationships with independent doctors in a variety of specialties, as well expert witnesses in computer simulations as well as reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

The damages that plaintiffs can claim in motor vehicle litigation can include both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages covers any monetary costs that can easily be added to calculate a total, for example, medical expenses or lost wages, property repair and even future financial losses, like a diminished earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of living are not able to be reduced to money. 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 where there are multiple defendants, courts typically employ comparative fault rules to determine the amount of total damages to be split between them. The jury has to determine the percentage of blame each defendant carries for the incident and then divide the total damages awarded by the same percentage. However, New York law 1602 specifically excludes owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule with respect to injuries sustained by drivers of those cars and trucks. The method of determining if the presumption of permissiveness is complicated. In general the only way to prove that the owner was not able to grant permission for the driver to operate the vehicle can overcome the presumption.