Motor Vehicle Litigation

When liability is contested, motor vehicle accident lawyer it becomes necessary to file a lawsuit. The defendant will then have 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 were at fault for an accident, your damages will be reduced based on your percentage of fault. There is one exception to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes owners of vehicles which are rented or leased by minors.

Duty of Care

In a case of negligence the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty of care towards them. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, but those who take the driving wheel of a motorized vehicle have a greater obligation to the people in their area of activity. This includes ensuring that they do not cause motor vehicle accidents.

Courtrooms assess an individual's actions with what a normal person would do in similar circumstances to determine a reasonable standard of care. Expert witnesses are frequently required in cases of medical malpractice. Experts with a superior understanding of specific fields could be held to a greater standard of care.

When someone breaches their duty of care, it can cause harm to the victim and/or their property. The victim must demonstrate that the defendant's violation of their duty caused the harm and damages they suffered. Causation is a key element of any negligence claim. It requires proof of both the primary and secondary causes of the damage and injury.

If a person is stopped at an stop sign it is likely that they will be struck by another vehicle. If their car is damaged, they'll be responsible for the repairs. However, the real cause of the crash might be a cut in a brick that later develops into a serious infection.

Breach of Duty

A defendant's breach of duty is the second aspect of negligence that has to be proven to win compensation in a personal injury suit. A breach of duty happens when the actions of the party at fault aren't in line with what reasonable people would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor is a professional with a range of professional obligations towards his patients. These professional obligations stem from state law and licensing bodies. Motorists are required to show care to other drivers and pedestrians on the road to drive safely and observe traffic laws. If a driver violates this obligation of care and causes an accident, he is accountable for the injury suffered by the victim.

Lawyers can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to establish the existence of the duty of care, and then prove that the defendant failed to meet that standard in his actions. It is a question of fact for the jury to decide if the defendant was in compliance with the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also establish that the breach of duty by the defendant was the proximate cause of his or her injuries. It is more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. A defendant could have driven through a red light, but that wasn't what caused the crash on your bicycle. Because of this, causation is often challenged by defendants in collision cases.

Causation

In motor vehicle accident lawyers vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and their injuries. If the plaintiff sustained neck injuries as a result of a rear-end collision the attorney for the plaintiff would argue that the collision was the reason for the injury. Other elements that are required in causing the collision such as being in a stationary car, are not culpable, and do not affect the jury's determination of liability.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between negligence and the victim's afflictions may be more difficult to establish. The reality that the plaintiff experienced a an uneasy childhood, a bad relationship with his or her parents, [URL] abused drugs and alcohol or experienced prior unemployment could have a bearing on the severity of the psychological issues suffers from following a crash, but the courts typically consider these factors as an element of the background conditions that caused the accident arose rather than an independent cause of the injuries.

If you have been in an accident involving a motor vehicle accident lawyer vehicle that was serious, it is important to consult with an experienced attorney. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience representing clients in motor vehicle accident commercial and business litigation, as well as personal injury cases. Our lawyers have formed relationships with independent physicians in a wide range of specialties, expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations, and with private investigators.

Damages

The damages that a plaintiff may recover in motor vehicle litigation include both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages includes all monetary costs which are easily added together and calculated into an overall amount, including medical treatments, lost wages, repairs to property, or even a future financial loss, for instance the loss of earning capacity.

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

In the event of multiple defendants, courts typically use the comparative fault rule to determine the amount of damages to be divided between them. The jury must determine the percentage of blame each defendant is responsible for the incident and then divide the total damages awarded by the same percentage. However, New York law 1602 disqualifies vehicle owners from the rule of comparative negligence in cases where injuries are sustained by the drivers of trucks or cars. The resulting analysis of whether the presumption of permissive use applies is not straightforward, and typically only a convincing evidence that the owner explicitly did not have permission to operate his car will overcome it.