motor vehicle accident attorney Vehicle Litigation

When liability is contested, it becomes necessary to file a lawsuit. The defendant will then be given the chance to respond to the complaint.

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

Duty of Care

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was bound by the duty of care towards them. Nearly everyone owes this obligation to everyone else, but those who take the car are obligated to other people in their field of operation. This includes not causing accidents in motor vehicles.

In courtrooms the standard of care is determined by comparing an individual's actions with what a typical person would do in similar circumstances. In the event of medical malpractice experts are often required. Experts who are knowledgeable in a particular field may also be held to an higher standard of care than others in similar situations.

A person's breach of their duty of care could cause harm to the victim or their property. The victim is then required to show that the defendant's infringement of their duty resulted in the injury and damages that they have suffered. Causation proof is a crucial part of any negligence case and involves investigating both the primary cause of the injury or damages and the proximate cause of the damage or injury.

If someone runs an intersection then they are more likely to be struck by another vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll be accountable for the repairs. The actual cause of a crash could be a fracture in the brick that leads to an infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by a defendant is the second element of negligence that must be proved to obtain compensation in a personal injury claim. A breach of duty happens when the at-fault party's actions are not in line with what an average person would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for instance has a variety of professional obligations to his patients, which stem from laws of the state and licensing bodies. Drivers are required to take care of other drivers and pedestrians, and to obey traffic laws. If a driver violates this duty of care and results in an accident, he is responsible for the injury suffered by the victim.

A lawyer may use the "reasonable persons" standard to demonstrate that there is a duty of caution and then demonstrate that defendant did not comply with this standard in his actions. It is a matter of fact for the jury to decide if the defendant complied with the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the breach by the defendant was the main cause of the plaintiff's injuries. It can be more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. For instance, a defendant may have been a motorist who ran a red light, but his or her action wasn't the proximate cause of the crash. For this reason, causation is often contested by the defendants in case of a crash.

Causation

In motor Vehicle accident lawyers vehicle-related cases, the plaintiff must prove that there is a causal connection between the breach by the defendant and their injuries. For instance, if the plaintiff suffered an injury to the neck as a result of a rear-end collision and their lawyer might argue that the collision caused 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 liability.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between a negligent act and the affected plaintiff's symptoms can be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff suffered from a troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with his or her parents, experimented with alcohol and drugs, or suffered previous unemployment may have some influence on the severity of the psychological problems he or she suffers after a crash, Motor Vehicle Accident Lawyers but the courts typically view these elements as part of the background circumstances that caused the accident in which the plaintiff was triggered, not as a separate cause of the injuries.

If you have been in a serious motor vehicle crash it is crucial to consult with an experienced attorney. The attorneys at Arnold & Clifford, LLP, have extensive experience in representing clients in personal injury, commercial and business litigation, as well as motor vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have developed working relationships with independent doctors in different specialties as well as experts in computer simulations and reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

In motor vehicle litigation, a plaintiff can seek both economic and noneconomic damages. The first category of damages is any monetary costs that are easily added up and calculated as a sum, such as medical expenses, lost wages, property repair and even future financial losses, like a decrease in earning capacity.

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

In cases where there are multiple defendants, Courts will often use comparative negligence rules to determine how much of the damages awarded should be divided between them. The jury must determine how much fault each defendant had for the accident and then divide the total damages awarded by that percentage of the fault. However, New York law 1602 specifically exempts owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule when it comes to injuries sustained by drivers of the vehicles. The subsequent analysis of whether the presumption that permissive use applies is complicated and typically only a clear showing that the owner specifically denied permission to operate the car will be sufficient to overcome it.