Motor Vehicle Litigation

If the liability is challenged in court, it becomes necessary to make a complaint. The defendant will then be given the chance to respond to the complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that if a jury finds you to be responsible for an accident, your damages will be reduced according to your percentage of fault. There is a slight exception to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes owners of vehicles that are rented or leased to minors.

Duty of Care

In a case of negligence the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had the duty of care toward them. This duty is owed by all, but those who operate a vehicle have an even higher duty to others in their field. This includes ensuring that they do not cause motor vehicle accidents.

In courtrooms the standard of care is established by comparing an individual's behavior to what a normal person would do in the same situations. Expert witnesses are frequently required in cases involving medical negligence. People with superior knowledge in specific fields could be held to a higher standard of care.

A person's breach of their duty of care could cause harm to a victim, or their property. The victim has to prove that the defendant's breach of their duty led to the injury and damages that they sustained. Proving causation is a critical part of any negligence case and involves looking at both the actual cause of the injury or damages, as well as the causal reason for the injury or damage.

If a person is stopped at an intersection, they are likely to be hit by a car. If their car is damaged, they will be required to pay for repairs. The reason for the crash could be a cut from the brick, which then develops into a deadly infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by the defendant is the second factor of negligence that must be proven to win compensation in a personal injury suit. A breach of duty occurs when the actions of a party who is at fault do not match what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor has several professional duties to his patients based on laws of the state and licensing boards. Drivers are bound to care for other drivers and pedestrians, and to obey traffic laws. If a driver violates this duty of care and causes an accident, he is accountable for the injuries sustained 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 satisfy the standard through his actions. It is a matter 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 the injuries. It can be more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. For instance, a defendant may have crossed a red light, but his or her action was not the primary reason for your bicycle crash. The issue of causation is often challenged in case of a crash by the defendants.

Causation

In eureka motor vehicle accident attorney vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and the injuries. For instance, if a plaintiff suffered an injury to his neck in a rear-end collision, his or her lawyer might argue that the accident caused the injury. Other elements that could have caused the collision, such as being in a stationary car are not culpable and will not affect the jury's decision to determine the degree of fault.

It is possible to prove a causal link between a negligent act and the psychological issues of the plaintiff. The fact that the plaintiff suffered from a troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with his or her parents, was a user of alcohol and drugs or had previous unemployment may have some bearing on the severity of the psychological problems he or she suffers after a crash, but the courts typically view these elements as an element of the background conditions that led to the accident from which the plaintiff's injury resulted rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

It is imperative to consult an experienced attorney should you be involved in a serious tarrant motor vehicle accident law firm accident. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience representing clients in motor vehicle accidents as well as business and commercial litigation, as well as personal injury cases. Our lawyers have developed working relationships with independent physicians in many specialties as well as experts in computer simulations and accident reconstruction.

Damages

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

New York law also recognizes the right to seek non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, which cannot be reduced to a monetary amount. The proof of these damages is through extensive evidence such as depositions from family members and friends of the plaintiff medical records, depositions, or other expert witness testimony.

In cases that involve multiple defendants, Courts will often use comparative negligence rules to determine the proportion of damages awarded should be split between them. The jury must determine the percentage of fault each defendant has for the incident and then divide the total damages awarded by the same percentage. However, New York law 1602 excludes vehicle owners from the rule of comparative negligence in cases where injuries are caused by drivers of trucks or cars. The subsequent analysis of whether the presumption of permissiveness is applicable is a bit nebulous and typically only a clear evidence that the owner has explicitly did not have permission to operate his car will be sufficient to overcome it.