motor vehicle accident attorneys Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is required when liability is in dispute. The Defendant will then have the opportunity 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 at fault for causing the accident the damages awarded to you 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 negligence suit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed them a duty to exercise reasonable care. This duty is owed by all, but those who operate a vehicle have an even greater obligation to other drivers in their field. This includes not causing accidents in motor vehicles.

In courtrooms, the standards of care are determined by comparing an individual's conduct to what a normal person would do in the same circumstances. Expert witnesses are frequently required when cases involve medical malpractice. People with superior knowledge in particular fields may be held to a higher standard of medical care.

A breach of a person's obligation of care can cause harm to the victim or their property. The victim is then required to prove that the defendant acted in breach of their duty of care and caused the injury or damage they sustained. Causation is a key element of any negligence claim. It requires proof of both the proximate and actual causes of the damage and injury.

For example, if someone is stopped at a red light then it's likely that they will be hit by a car. If their car is damaged, they will be required to pay for repairs. The reason for the crash could be a brick cut which develops into an infection.

Breach of Duty

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

A doctor, for instance, has a number of professional obligations to his patients that are derived from state law and Motor vehicle accident attorneys licensing bodies. Drivers are obliged to care for other drivers and pedestrians, and Motor Vehicle Accident Attorneys to follow traffic laws. If a motorist violates this obligation of care and creates an accident, he is accountable for the injury suffered by the victim.

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

The plaintiff must also establish that the defendant's breach of duty was the proximate cause of the injuries. It can be more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. For example an individual defendant could have run a red light but it's likely that his or her actions wasn't the main cause of the crash. The issue of causation is often challenged in cases of crash by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle accident attorneys vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and their injuries. If a plaintiff suffers neck injuries in an accident with rear-end damage then his or her attorney would argue that the collision was the reason for the injury. Other factors that are needed in causing the collision such as being in a stationary vehicle, are not culpable and do not affect the jury's decision of the liability.

For psychological injuries However, the connection between an act of negligence and an injured plaintiff's symptoms could be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff had troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with their parents, abused alcohol and drugs or had prior unemployment could have a impact on the severity of the psychological problems he or suffers following an accident, but courts typically consider these factors as part of the context that caused the accident in which the plaintiff resulted rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

If you've been involved in a serious motor vehicle accident attorneys vehicle crash, it is important to consult with an experienced attorney. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP have years of experience representing clients in personal injury cases, business and commercial litigation, and motor vehicle crash cases. Our lawyers have formed working relationships with independent physicians in a range of specialties, expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations as well as with private investigators.

Damages

The damages a plaintiff may recover in a motor vehicle lawsuit include both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages includes any monetary costs that can be easily added to calculate a total, for example, medical treatment, lost wages, property repairs, and even future financial losses such as diminished earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to seek non-economic damages such as pain and suffering as well as loss of enjoyment of life which cannot be reduced to a monetary amount. These damages must be proved with a large amount of evidence, such as depositions of family members or friends of the plaintiff medical records, depositions, or other expert witness testimony.

In cases where there are multiple defendants, courts will often use comparative fault rules to determine the amount of damages to be split between them. The jury must determine the percentage of blame each defendant is responsible for the incident, and divide the total amount of damages awarded by that percentage. New York law however, does not allow this. 1602 excludes vehicle owners from the comparative negligence rule in the event of injuries caused by drivers of cars or trucks. The process of determining whether the presumption is permissive or not is complicated. In general there is only a clear proof that the owner denied permission to the driver to operate the vehicle can be sufficient to overturn the presumption.