Motor Vehicle Litigation

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

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

Duty of Care

In a negligence suit the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant was obligated to exercise reasonable care. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, but individuals who get behind the steering wheel of a motor vehicle lawyers vehicle have an even higher duty to others in their area of operation. This includes ensuring that they don't cause motor vehicle legal vehicle accidents.

Courtrooms examine an individual's conduct to what a typical person would do under the same circumstances to determine reasonable standards of care. This is why expert witnesses are frequently required in cases of medical malpractice. Experts with a higher level of expertise in a particular field may also be held to the highest standards of care than other individuals in similar situations.

A breach of a person's duty of care could cause harm to a victim or their property. The victim is then required to demonstrate that the defendant did not fulfill their duty and caused the injury or damage that they suffered. Causation is a key element of any negligence claim. It involves proving both the actual and proximate causes of the damages and injuries.

For example, if someone runs a red light there is a good chance that they will be hit by a vehicle. If their car is damaged they will be responsible for repairs. But the actual cause of the accident could be a cut or bricks that later develop into a serious infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by the defendant is the second factor of negligence that must be proven to win compensation in a personal injury claim. A breach of duty occurs when the actions of the person who is at fault are not in line with what an ordinary person would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for instance, has a variety of professional obligations to his patients stemming from the law of the state and licensing boards. Drivers have a duty to protect other motorists and pedestrians, and obey traffic laws. Drivers who violate this duty and results in an accident is responsible for the victim's injuries.

A lawyer may use the "reasonable person" standard to establish the existence of the duty of care and then prove that the defendant failed to meet the standard in his actions. The jury will decide if the defendant met or did not meet the standard.

The plaintiff must also establish that the breach of duty by the defendant was the primary cause of the injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. A defendant might have walked through a red light but that's not the cause of your bicycle accident. Causation is often contested in case of a crash by the defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal link between the defendant's breach of duty and his or her injuries. If a plaintiff suffered an injury to the neck in an accident that involved rear-end collisions then his or her attorney would argue that the collision was the cause of the injury. Other factors that are necessary to cause the collision, like being in a stationary vehicle are not culpable and will not impact the jury's determination of the fault.

It is possible to prove a causal link between a negligent action and the plaintiff's psychological symptoms. The fact that the plaintiff has a an unhappy childhood, a poor 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 he or suffers from following an accident, but courts typically view these elements as part of the background circumstances that caused the accident occurred, rather than as an independent reason for the injuries.

It is essential to speak with an experienced attorney when you've been involved in a serious motor vehicle lawyers vehicle accident. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience in representing clients in motor vehicle case vehicle accident commercial and business litigation, as well as personal injury cases. Our lawyers have established working relationships with independent doctors in different specialties, as well expert witnesses in computer simulations as well as reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

The damages plaintiffs can seek in a motor vehicle lawsuit include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages comprises any financial expenses that can be easily added up and calculated as an amount, like medical treatment or lost wages, property repairs, motor vehicle lawsuit and even future financial losses like a diminished earning capacity.

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

In cases involving multiple defendants, Courts will often use the rules of comparative negligence to determine the proportion of damages award should be allocated between them. This requires the jury to determine the degree of fault each defendant was at fault for the accident, Motor vehicle Lawsuit and then divide the total damages awarded by that percentage of the fault. New York law however, does not allow for this. 1602 specifically excludes owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule with respect to injuries sustained by the driver of the vehicles. The method of determining if the presumption is permissive or not is complicated. Typically the only way to prove that the owner denied permission to the driver to operate the vehicle can be sufficient to overturn the presumption.