motor vehicle accident law firm Vehicle Litigation

If liability is contested in court, it becomes necessary to file a lawsuit. The Defendant will then have the opportunity to respond to the complaint.

New York follows pure comparative fault rules which means that in the event that a jury finds that you are responsible for causing a crash, your damages award will be reduced by your percentage of negligence. This rule is not applicable to the owners of vehicles that are rented out or leased to minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence lawsuit the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was obligated to exercise reasonable care. This duty is owed to everyone, but those who operate a vehicle owe an even higher duty to other people in their field. This includes ensuring that they do not cause accidents in Motor vehicle Accident attorney vehicles.

Courtrooms evaluate an individual's behavior to what a typical individual would do in similar circumstances to determine what constitutes an acceptable standard of care. Expert witnesses are often required in cases involving medical malpractice. Experts who have a superior understanding in a specific field could be held to the highest standards of care than others in similar situations.

A breach of a person's obligation of care can cause harm to a victim, or their property. The victim has to prove that the defendant breached their duty and caused the injury or damage that they suffered. Proving causation is an essential aspect of any negligence case and involves looking at both the actual causes of the injury damages and the proximate cause of the injury or damage.

For instance, if a person is stopped at a red light, it's likely that they'll be hit by a car. If their car is damaged, they will need to pay for repairs. The reason for the crash might be a cut in the brick, which then develops into a potentially dangerous infection.

Breach of Duty

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

For instance, a physician is required to perform a number of professional duties for his patients, arising from the law of the state and licensing boards. Motorists have a duty of care to other drivers and pedestrians to drive in a safe manner and adhere to traffic laws. If a driver violates this obligation of care and creates an accident, he is responsible for the injuries suffered by the victim.

A lawyer may use the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of an obligation of care. The lawyer must then demonstrate that the defendant failed to satisfy the standard through his actions. The jury will decide if the defendant complied with or did not meet the standards.

The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the breach of duty by the defendant was the sole cause of the plaintiff's injuries. It can be more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. A defendant may have run through a red light, but that wasn't what caused the accident on your bicycle. Causation is often contested in a crash case by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle-related cases, the plaintiff must prove a causal link between breach of the defendant and their injuries. For instance, if a plaintiff suffered neck injuries as a result of a rear-end collision, his or her lawyer would argue that the accident caused the injury. Other factors that are essential in causing the collision like being in a stationary vehicle, are not culpable, and do not affect the jury's decision of liability.

For psychological injuries However, the connection between a negligent act and an injured plaintiff's symptoms may be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff has a troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with their parents, experimented with alcohol and drugs or previous unemployment may have some influence on the severity the psychological issues is suffering from following a crash, but the courts typically look at these factors as part of the background circumstances from which the plaintiff's accident arose rather than an independent cause of the injuries.

It is essential to speak with an experienced attorney in the event that you've been involved in a serious car accident. The attorneys at Arnold & Clifford, LLP have years of experience representing clients in personal injury, commercial and business litigation, as well as motor vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have established relationships with independent physicians across a variety of specialties including expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations, as well as with private investigators.

Damages

The damages a plaintiff can recover in a motor vehicle accident lawyers vehicle case include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages is all costs that can easily be added up and summed up into a total, for example, medical treatments as well as lost wages, repairs to property, or even a future financial loss, for instance the loss of earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages like suffering and pain, as well as loss of enjoyment can't be reduced to money. However the damages must be established to exist with the help of extensive evidence, including deposition testimony of the plaintiff's close family members and friends 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 how much of the total damages awarded should be divided between them. The jury must decide the proportion of fault each defendant has for the incident and then divide the total damages awarded by the same percentage. New York law however, does not allow this. 1602 disqualifies vehicle owners from the comparative negligence rule in the event of injuries sustained by the drivers of cars or trucks. The method of determining if the presumption is permissive or not is complex. Typically the only way to prove that the owner was not able to grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle will be sufficient to overturn the presumption.