• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Motor Vehicle Litigation

If liability is contested then it is necessary to file a lawsuit. The defendant will then be given the opportunity to respond to the complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that if a jury finds that you are responsible for an accident and you are found to be at fault, your damages will be reduced based on your percentage of fault. There is one exception to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes owners of vehicles hired or leased by minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence lawsuit the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant owed them a duty to exercise reasonable care. This duty is owed to all people, however those who operate a vehicle owe an even greater duty to other drivers in their field. This includes ensuring that they don't cause motor vehicle accidents.

In courtrooms, the standards of care are determined by comparing an individual's actions with what a normal person would do in the same situations. Expert witnesses are often required in cases involving medical negligence. Experts who are knowledgeable in a specific field could be held to the highest standards of care than other people in similar situations.

A person's breach of their duty of care could cause injury to a victim or their property. The victim then has to prove that the defendant breached their obligation and caused the damage or damage they sustained. Causation is a key element of any negligence claim. It requires proof of both the primary and secondary causes of the injuries and damages.

If a driver is caught running an stop sign it is likely that they will be hit by another vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll have to pay for the repairs. But the reason for the accident could be a cut in a brick that later develops into a serious infection.

Breach of Duty

The second element of negligence is the breach of duty by a defendant. This must be proved for compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty happens when the actions of the party at fault fall short of what reasonable people would do in similar circumstances.

For example, a doctor has several professional obligations to his patients, arising from state law and licensing boards. Motorists owe a duty care to other drivers and pedestrians to be safe and follow traffic laws. If a driver fails to comply with this duty of care and results in an accident, the driver is accountable for the injuries suffered by the victim.

A lawyer can use the "reasonable person" standard to establish the existence of a duty of care and then show that the defendant did not meet the standard in his actions. It is a question of fact that the jury has to decide whether the defendant complied with the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also establish that the breach of duty of the defendant was the primary cause for his or her injuries. It is more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. For example the defendant could have been a motorist who ran a red light, but it's likely that his or her actions was not the primary cause of your bike crash. Causation is often contested in cases of crash by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff must establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and the injuries. For instance, if the plaintiff suffered a neck injury from a rear-end collision, his or her lawyer will argue that the accident caused the injury. Other factors that are essential in causing the collision like being in a stationary vehicle, are not considered to be culpable and therefore do not affect the jury's determination of liability.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between a negligent act and the victim's afflictions may be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff has a an uneasy childhood, a bad relationship with their parents, used drugs and alcohol or experienced previous unemployment may have some impact on the severity of the psychological problems he or suffers from following an accident, however, the courts typically look at these factors as part of the background circumstances from which the plaintiff's accident resulted rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

If you have been in a serious motor vehicle accident lawsuits vehicle accident, it is important to speak with a seasoned attorney. The attorneys at Arnold & Clifford, LLP, have extensive experience in representing clients in personal injury commercial and business litigation and motor vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have established working relationships with independent physicians with a variety of specialties including expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations as well as with private investigators.

Damages

The damages that a plaintiff can recover in a motor vehicle case include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages covers all financial costs that can be easily added together and summed up into a total, for example, medical expenses as well as lost wages, repairs to property, and even the possibility of future financial loss, like loss of earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to seek non-economic damages like pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, which cannot be reduced to a monetary amount. However these damages must be proved to exist through extensive evidence, such as deposition testimony of the plaintiff's close family members and friends medical records, other expert witness testimony.

In the event of multiple defendants, courts typically employ comparative fault rules to determine the amount of damages that should be divided between them. The jury must determine the amount of fault each defendant was responsible for the accident and to then divide the total damages awarded by the percentage of blame. 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 cars or trucks. The analysis to determine whether the presumption is permissive is complicated. In general it is only a clear evidence that the owner refused permission to the driver to operate the vehicle will overcome the presumption.