Motor Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is necessary when liability is contested. The defendant will then have the chance to respond to the complaint.

New York follows pure comparative fault rules, which means that in the event that a jury finds you to be the cause of an accident the amount of damages awarded will be reduced by the percentage of negligence. This rule is not applicable to the owners of vehicles that are that are leased or rented to minors.

Duty of Care

In a case of negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed an obligation of care to them. The majority of people owe this obligation to everyone else, however those who sit behind the wheel of a san benito motor vehicle accident attorney vehicle are obligated to the people in their area of operation. This includes not causing accidents in motor vehicle accident attorney vehicles.

In courtrooms the quality of care is determined by comparing an individual's behavior with what a typical person would do in the same circumstances. In cases of medical malpractice experts are typically required. People who have superior knowledge in a particular field can also be held to an even higher standard of care than other individuals in similar situations.

When a person breaches their duty of care, it can cause damage to the victim as well as their property. The victim is then required to prove that the defendant breached their duty of care and caused the injury or damage that they suffered. Causation is an essential element of any negligence claim. It requires proof of both the proximate and actual causes of the injuries and damages.

If someone runs an intersection it is likely that they will be hit by a car. If their vehicle is damaged, they will need to pay for repairs. The reason for a crash could be caused by a brick cut that causes an infection.

Breach of Duty

A defendant's breach of duty is the second aspect of negligence that has to be proved in order to secure compensation in a personal injury suit. A breach of duty is when the actions of the person at fault do not match what an ordinary person would do under similar circumstances.

A doctor, for example has many professional obligations towards his patients. These professional obligations stem from state law and licensing bodies. Motorists have a duty of care to other drivers and pedestrians on the road to be safe and follow traffic laws. When a driver breaches this obligation of care and causes an accident, he is accountable for the injury suffered by the victim.

A lawyer may use the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of the duty of care and then prove that the defendant did not meet the standard in his actions. The jury will decide if the defendant complied with 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. It can be more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. For example the defendant could have crossed a red line, but his or her action was not the sole reason for your bicycle crash. Because of this, the causation issue is often contested by the defendants in case of a crash.

Causation

In westlake motor vehicle accident law Firm vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal link between the defendant's breach of duty and their injuries. If a plaintiff suffers neck injuries in an accident that involved rear-end collisions and his or her attorney would argue that the collision was the reason for the injury. Other factors that are essential for the collision to occur, like being in a stationary vehicle are not considered to be culpable and therefore do not affect the jury's decision of the liability.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between a negligent act and the injured plaintiff's symptoms could be more difficult to establish. The reality that the plaintiff experienced a a troubled childhood, poor relationship with their parents, abused alcohol and drugs or prior unemployment could have a bearing on the severity of the psychological issues suffers from following an accident, but courts typically consider these factors as part of the background circumstances that caused the accident in which the plaintiff was triggered, not as a separate reason for the injuries.

If you have been in a serious motor vehicle crash it is essential to consult an experienced attorney. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience in representing clients in motor vehicle accident cases, business and commercial litigation, and personal injury cases. Our lawyers have built working relationships with independent doctors in many areas of expertise as well as expert witnesses in computer simulations and accident reconstruction.

Damages

The damages a plaintiff can recover in motor vehicle litigation include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages encompasses all financial costs that are easily added together and summed up into a total, for example, medical expenses or lost wages, repair to property, and even future financial loss, like the loss of earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages, like pain and suffering, and Motor vehicle accident Law Firm loss of enjoyment of living can't be reduced to financial value. However the damages must be proved to exist using extensive evidence, such as deposition testimony of the plaintiff's close family members and friends medical records, deposition testimony, and other expert witness testimony.

In the event of multiple defendants, courts typically apply the rules of comparative fault to determine the amount of damages to be divided between them. This requires the jury to determine how much responsibility each defendant was at fault for the accident and to then divide the total damages award by the percentage of the fault. However, New York law 1602 specifically excludes owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule with respect to injuries sustained by the driver of these trucks and cars. The process to determine if the presumption is permissive is complex. Typically there is only a clear proof that the owner was not able to grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle will be sufficient to overturn the presumption.