motor vehicle accident attorneys vehicle accident lawyer - m.ggooklock.com - Vehicle Litigation

If the liability is challenged then it is necessary to bring a lawsuit. The Defendant will then have the chance to respond to the complaint.

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

Duty of Care

In a case of negligence, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant had the duty of care toward them. Most people owe this duty to everyone else, but those who are behind the driving wheel of a motorized vehicle have an even higher duty to the other drivers in their zone of operation. This includes not causing accidents with motor vehicles.

Courtrooms compare an individual's actions with what a normal person would do under similar conditions to determine a reasonable standard of care. In cases of medical malpractice expert witnesses are typically required. Experts who have a superior understanding in a specific field could be held to an higher standard of care than other people in similar situations.

A person's breach of their duty of care may cause injury to a victim or motor vehicle accident lawyer their property. The victim has to prove that the defendant's breach of their duty caused the injury and damages that they suffered. Proving causation is an essential aspect of any negligence claim and involves looking at both the actual reason for the injury or damages as well as the cause of the damage or injury.

For example, if someone has a red light, it's likely that they'll be hit by a car. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll be responsible for the repairs. The reason for a crash could be a fracture in the brick that leads to an infection.

Breach of Duty

A defendant's breach of duty is the second element of negligence that needs to be proven to win compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty occurs when the actions of the party at fault fall short of what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for instance, has a number of professional duties towards his patients. These professional obligations stem from the law of the state and motor vehicle accident lawyer licensing authorities. Motorists are required to show care to other motorists and pedestrians to drive safely and obey traffic laws. If a motorist violates this duty of care and creates an accident, he is accountable for the injuries sustained by the victim.

A lawyer can rely on the "reasonable individuals" standard to establish that there is a duty of care and then prove that the defendant did not adhere to this standard with his actions. The jury will decide if the defendant met or did not meet the standards.

The plaintiff must also prove that the breach by the defendant was the primary cause of the plaintiff's injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty and breach. For instance, a defendant may have crossed a red line, but it's likely that his or her actions was not the primary cause of your bike crash. In this way, causation is often challenged by defendants in crash cases.

Causation

In motor vehicle accidents, the plaintiff must prove a causal link between defendant's breach and their injuries. If a plaintiff suffers neck injuries in a rear-end collision, his or her attorney would argue that the collision was the reason for the injury. Other factors that are necessary to cause the collision, like being in a stationary vehicle are not considered to be culpable and will not influence the jury’s determination of fault.

It is possible to prove a causal link between a negligent action and the plaintiff's psychological problems. The fact that the plaintiff suffered from a troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with his or her parents, abused drugs and alcohol or experienced previous unemployment may have some impact on the severity of the psychological problems he or suffers following an accident, however, the courts typically look at these factors as part of the circumstances from which the plaintiff's accident was triggered, not as a separate cause of the injuries.

If you have been in an accident that is serious to your vehicle, it is important to speak with an experienced attorney. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have extensive experience in representing clients in motor vehicle accidents commercial and business litigation, and personal injury cases. Our lawyers have built working relationships with independent doctors in various specialties as well as expert witnesses in computer simulations and reconstruction of accident.

Damages

The damages a plaintiff may recover in motor vehicle litigation can include both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages encompasses all monetary costs which can be easily added together and calculated into an overall amount, including medical treatments as well as lost wages, repairs to property, or even a future financial loss, for instance a diminished earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, cannot be reduced to financial value. However, these damages must be established to exist by a variety of evidence, including deposition testimony from plaintiff's close friends and family members medical records, as well as other expert witness testimony.

In cases where there are multiple defendants, courts will typically apply the rules of comparative fault to determine the amount of total damages to be split between them. The jury must determine how much responsibility each defendant incurred in the accident and to then divide the total damages awarded by that percentage of blame. New York law however, does not allow this. 1602 specifically exempts owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule with respect to injuries suffered by driver of those cars and trucks. The subsequent analysis of whether the presumption of permissiveness is applicable is a bit nebulous, and typically only a clear showing that the owner specifically was not granted permission to operate the vehicle will overcome it.