Motor Vehicle Litigation

If the liability is challenged then it is necessary to start a lawsuit. The Defendant has the right to respond to the Complaint.

New York follows pure comparative fault rules and, if the jury finds you to be at fault for causing a crash the amount of damages awarded will be reduced by the percentage of negligence. There is a caveat to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes the owners of vehicles that are rented or leased by minors.

Duty of Care

In a lawsuit for negligence the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed them a duty to act with reasonable care. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, but individuals who get behind the steering wheel of a motor vehicle have a greater obligation to the other drivers in their zone of operation. This includes ensuring that they don't cause accidents with motor vehicle accident lawyer vehicles.

In courtrooms the quality of care is determined by comparing an individual's actions with what a normal person would do in similar circumstances. In the event of medical malpractice expert witnesses are typically required. Experts with a superior understanding of particular fields may be held to a greater standard of treatment.

When a person breaches their duty of care, it can cause injury to the victim or their property. The victim must prove that the defendant acted in breach of their obligation and caused the damage or damage that they suffered. Proving causation is a critical aspect of any negligence case and involves investigating both the primary basis of the injury or damages, as well as the causal reason for the injury or damage.

If someone is driving through a stop sign then they are more likely to be struck by another vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they will be required to pay for repairs. The actual cause of an accident could be a brick cut which develops into an infection.

Breach of Duty

A defendant's breach of duty is the second element of negligence that must be proved in order to receive compensation in a personal injury suit. A breach of duty is when the actions of the person who is at fault are insufficient to what a normal person would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for example has many professional obligations to his patients that are derived from state law and licensing bodies. Drivers are required to protect other motorists and pedestrians, and follow traffic laws. If a driver fails to comply with this obligation of care and creates an accident, he is responsible for the victim's injuries.

A lawyer can use "reasonable individuals" standard to prove that there is a duty of care and then demonstrate that defendant did not adhere to this standard with his actions. It is a question of fact for the jury to decide if the defendant fulfilled the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also prove that the breach by the defendant was the direct 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 crash on your bicycle. For this reason, causation is often contested by the defendants in case of a crash.

Causation

In motor vehicle accidents, the plaintiff must establish a causal link between defendant's breach and their injuries. For instance, if the plaintiff sustained a neck injury from a rear-end collision, his or her lawyer might claim that the collision caused the injury. Other factors that are needed for the collision to occur, like being in a stationary car, are not considered to be culpable and therefore do not affect the jury's decision of liability.

It can be difficult to establish a causal relationship between an act of negligence and the plaintiff's psychological symptoms. The reality that the plaintiff experienced a an unhappy childhood, a poor relationship with his or her parents, experimented with drugs and alcohol or experienced prior unemployment could have a bearing on the severity of the psychological problems he or suffers from following an accident, but courts generally view these factors as part of the circumstances that led to the accident from which the plaintiff's injury arose rather than an independent cause of the injuries.

If you've been involved in a serious motor vehicle accident It is imperative to consult an experienced attorney. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP have years of experience representing clients in personal injury cases, business and commercial litigation, and motor vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have formed working relationships with independent physicians in a variety of specialties, as well as expert witnesses in computer simulations as well as reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

The damages that plaintiffs can claim in Motor Vehicle Accident Lawsuits vehicle litigation include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages covers all financial costs that can be easily added together and calculated as an overall amount, including medical treatments as well as lost wages, repairs to property, and even the possibility of future financial losses, such as the loss of earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages, like suffering and pain, and loss of enjoyment are not able to be reduced to cash. However these damages must be proved to exist by a variety of evidence, including deposition testimony from the plaintiff's close family members and friends medical records, as well as other expert witness testimony.

In the event of multiple defendants, courts typically apply the rules of comparative fault to determine the amount of total damages to be divided between them. The jury must determine the degree of fault each defendant was at fault for the accident and to then divide the total amount of damages by the percentage of fault. New York law however, motor Vehicle Accident Lawsuits does not permit this. 1602 exempts owners of vehicles from the rule of comparative negligence in the event of injuries sustained by the drivers of cars or trucks. The subsequent analysis of whether the presumption of permissive usage applies is not straightforward and typically only a clear showing that the owner explicitly refused permission to operate the vehicle will be able to overcome it.