Motor Vehicle Litigation

If liability is contested and the liability is disputed, it is necessary to file a lawsuit. The defendant is entitled to respond to the complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that when a jury finds you to be responsible for an accident, your damages will be reduced according to your percentage of blame. This rule does not apply to owners of vehicles rented out or leased to minors.

Duty of Care

In a case of negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was bound by a duty of care towards them. Most people owe this duty to everyone else, Royal Oak Motor Vehicle Accident Attorney however those who sit behind the car have a greater obligation to other people in their field of operation. This includes ensuring that they do not cause accidents in ocean city motor vehicle accident lawyer vehicles.

Courtrooms examine an individual's conduct to what a typical person would do under the same circumstances to establish what is a reasonable standard of care. In the event of medical malpractice expert witnesses are typically required. People with superior knowledge in specific fields could be held to a higher standard of medical care.

When a person breaches their duty of care, it could cause harm to the victim and/or their property. The victim has to prove that the defendant breached their duty and caused the injury or damage they sustained. Proving causation is a critical part of any negligence case and requires considering both the actual cause of the injury or damages as well as the proximate cause of the injury or damage.

If a person is stopped at an stop sign, they are likely to be hit by another vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they will have to pay for the repairs. The reason for an accident could be a brick cut which develops into an infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by a defendant is the second element of negligence that needs to be proved to obtain compensation in a personal injury claim. A breach of duty occurs when the at-fault party's actions aren't in line with what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a physician has several professional obligations to his patients that are governed by the law of the state and licensing boards. Drivers are bound to be considerate of other drivers and pedestrians, and adhere to traffic laws. Drivers who violate this obligation and causes an accident is accountable for the victim's injuries.

A lawyer can use "reasonable persons" standard to establish that there is a duty to be cautious and then prove that the defendant did not comply with the standard in his actions. It is a matter of fact for the jury to decide whether the defendant was in compliance with the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also prove that the breach of duty of the defendant was the primary cause of the injuries. It is more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. A defendant could have run through a red light, however, that's not the reason for the accident on your bicycle. The issue of causation is often challenged in crash cases by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff must establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and his or her injuries. If a plaintiff suffers neck injuries in an accident with rear-end damage the attorney for the plaintiff will argue that the crash was the cause of the injury. Other factors that are essential for the collision to occur, like being in a stationary vehicle are not culpable and do not affect the jury's decision of the liability.

For psychological injuries However, the connection between an act of negligence and an affected plaintiff's symptoms can be more difficult to establish. The reality that the plaintiff experienced a an unhappy childhood, a poor relationship with their parents, experimented with alcohol and drugs or had previous unemployment may have some impact on the severity of the psychological issues he or suffers from following a crash, but the courts typically consider these factors as part of the background circumstances from which the plaintiff's accident arose rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

It is imperative to consult an experienced attorney should you be involved in a serious motor accident. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience representing clients in motor vehicle accidents cases, business and commercial litigation, and personal injury cases. Our lawyers have formed working 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

In Dayton Motor Vehicle Accident Attorney vehicle litigation, a plaintiff could get both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages covers any monetary expenses that can be easily added up and calculated as an amount, like medical expenses and lost wages, property repairs, and even future financial losses like a decrease in earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages, like pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of living cannot be reduced to cash. However these damages must be established to exist by a variety of evidence, such as 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 comparative negligence rules to determine 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 that percentage. New York law however, does not allow for this. 1602 specifically excludes owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule when it comes to injuries sustained by the driver of those cars and trucks. The method of determining if the presumption is permissive or not is complex. The majority of the time there is only a clear proof that the owner was not able to grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle can overrule the presumption.