Motor Vehicle Litigation

When liability is contested in court, it becomes necessary to file a lawsuit. The defendant has the right to respond to the complaint.

New York follows pure comparative fault rules which means that if the jury finds you responsible for an accident the amount of damages awarded will be reduced by your percentage of negligence. This rule does not apply to owners of vehicles rented out or leased to minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence suit the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed them a duty to exercise reasonable care. This duty is due to everyone, but people 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 aiken motor vehicle accident law firm vehicles.

Courtrooms evaluate an individual's behavior with what a normal person would do under similar conditions to determine an acceptable standard of care. In cases of medical malpractice experts are often required. Experts with a superior understanding of a certain field may be held to a greater standard of care.

If a person violates their duty of care, they could cause harm to the victim and/or their property. The victim then has to demonstrate that the defendant did not fulfill their duty and Vimeo caused the injury or damage they sustained. Causation proof is a crucial aspect of any negligence case and involves looking at both the actual basis of the injury or damages and the proximate reason for the injury or damage.

For instance, if a person runs a red stop sign there is a good chance that they'll be hit by another car. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll need to pay for repairs. The real cause of a crash could be a brick cut that develops into an infection.

Breach of Duty

The second element of negligence is the breach of duty by an individual defendant. It must be proven in order to receive compensation for a personal injury claim. A breach of duty is when the actions of the at-fault party fall short of what a normal person would do under similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor has a variety of professional obligations to his patients based on laws of the state and licensing boards. Motorists owe a duty care to other motorists and pedestrians to drive safely and observe traffic laws. When a driver breaches this duty of care and causes an accident, he is liable for the victim's injuries.

A lawyer may use the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of the duty of care and then show that the defendant did not comply with the 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 prove that the breach of duty by the defendant was the main cause of the plaintiff's injuries. It is more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. For example the defendant could have run a red light however, the act wasn't the main reason for your bicycle crash. In this way, the causation issue is often contested by defendants in crash cases.

Causation

In twin lakes motor vehicle accident lawsuit vehicle cases the plaintiff must establish a causal link between the breach of the defendant and the injuries. For example, if the plaintiff suffered neck injuries as a result of a rear-end collision the lawyer will claim that the collision caused the injury. Other factors that are necessary to cause the collision, such as being in a stationary car are not culpable and won't affect the jury's decision on fault.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between negligence and the injured plaintiff's symptoms could be more difficult to establish. The reality that the plaintiff experienced a troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with his or her parents, experimented with alcohol and drugs or prior unemployment could have a impact on the severity of the psychological issues he or is suffering from following a crash, but the courts typically look at these factors as part of the background circumstances that caused the accident arose rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

It is crucial to consult an experienced attorney if you have been involved in a serious motor accident. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP, have extensive experience in representing clients in personal injury, commercial and business litigation and motor vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have developed working relationships with independent doctors with a variety of specialties as well as expert witnesses in accidents reconstruction and computer simulations, and with private investigators.

Damages

The damages plaintiffs can claim in a motor vehicle lawsuit include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages encompasses all financial costs that can be easily added together and calculated as the total amount, which includes medical expenses and lost wages, repairs to property, or even a future financial loss, such a diminished earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to seek non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment, which cannot be reduced to a dollar amount. These damages must be established 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 that involve multiple defendants, Courts will often use the concept of comparative negligence to decide the percentage of damages awarded should be split between them. The jury must determine the degree of fault each defendant was at fault for the accident and to then divide the total damages awarded by the percentage of the fault. New York law however, does not allow this. 1602 specifically exempts owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule in relation to injuries suffered by driver of these vehicles and trucks. The process to determine if the presumption is permissive or not is complex. Typically it is only a clear evidence that the owner was not able to grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle can overrule the presumption.