Motor Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is required when the liability is being contested. The Defendant will then have the chance to respond to the complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that, should a jury find that you were at fault for an accident the amount of damages you will be reduced according to your percentage of blame. There is an exception to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes the owners of vehicles that are which are rented or leased by minors.

Duty of Care

In a case of negligence the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had an obligation of care to them. Most people owe this duty to everyone else, but those who take the driving wheel of a motorized vehicle have an even higher duty to others in their area of activity. This includes ensuring that they do not cause accidents in mount zion motor vehicle Accident lawyer vehicles.

In courtrooms, the standard of care is established by comparing an individual's conduct against what a normal individual would do in similar conditions. This is why expert witnesses are often required in cases involving medical negligence. Experts with a superior understanding of specific fields could be held to a higher standard of medical care.

A person's breach of their duty of care could cause harm to a victim or their property. The victim must demonstrate that the defendant's violation of their duty led to the damage and injury they suffered. Proving causation is a critical element in any negligence case which involves investigating both the primary basis of the injury or damages as well as the reason for the damage or injury.

For instance, if a driver runs a red light then it's likely that they will be hit by a car. If their vehicle is damaged, they will need to pay for repairs. But the actual cause of the accident could be a cut from bricks, which later turn into a deadly infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by the defendant is the second aspect of negligence that has to be proved to obtain compensation in a personal injury suit. A breach of duty is when the actions taken by the at-fault person are insufficient to what an ordinary person would do under similar circumstances.

A doctor, for example has a variety of professional obligations to his patients. These professional obligations stem from laws of the state and licensing bodies. Motorists have a duty of care to other motorists and pedestrians on the road to drive safely and obey traffic laws. When a driver breaches this obligation of care and creates an accident, he is accountable for the injury suffered by the victim.

Lawyers can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of the duty of care, and then demonstrate that the defendant failed to comply with the standard in his actions. The jury will determine if the defendant met or did not meet the standard.

The plaintiff must also prove that the breach of duty by the defendant was the proximate cause of the injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. A defendant could have driven through a red light, but that's not what caused your bicycle accident. Causation is often contested in cases of crash by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle accidents, the plaintiff must prove a causal link between the breach of the defendant and the injuries. If a plaintiff suffers neck injuries in an accident with rear-end damage, his or her attorney would argue that the collision was the cause of the injury. Other factors that are needed to cause the collision, like being in a stationary car, are not culpable and do not affect the jury's determination of liability.

It could be more difficult to prove a causal link between a negligent action and the plaintiff's psychological symptoms. The reality that the plaintiff experienced a an uneasy childhood, a bad relationship with his or her parents, was a user of drugs and alcohol or experienced previous unemployment may have some influence on the severity the psychological issues suffers following an accident, however, the courts typically look at these factors as part of the context that caused the accident occurred, rather than as an independent cause of the injuries.

It is important to consult an experienced lawyer in the event that you've been involved in a serious car accident. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have extensive experience in representing clients in motor vehicle accidents as well as business and commercial litigation, and personal injury cases. Our lawyers have established working relationships with independent medical professionals across a variety of specialties, expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations as well as with private investigators.

Damages

In texas city motor vehicle accident lawsuit vehicle litigation, a plaintiff may recover both economic and noneconomic damages. The first category of damages includes any monetary costs that can be easily added to calculate an amount, like medical treatment loss of wages, property repairs, and even future financial losses, like a diminished earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to recover non-economic damages, including the suffering of others and the loss of enjoyment of life which cannot be reduced to a dollar amount. The damages must be proven through extensive evidence like depositions of family members and friends of the plaintiff medical records, depositions, or other expert witness testimony.

In cases involving multiple defendants, Courts will often use the concept of comparative negligence to decide the proportion of damages awarded should be divided between them. This requires the jury to determine how much fault each defendant had for the incident and then divide the total amount of damages by that percentage of the fault. However, New York law 1602 does not exempt vehicle owners from the rule of comparative negligence in the event of injuries suffered by drivers of trucks or cars. The process to determine if the presumption is permissive or not is complicated. In general it is only a clear evidence that the owner denied permission for the driver to operate the vehicle can overrule the presumption.