• 글쓰기
• 목록

motor vehicle accident law firms Vehicle Litigation

When liability is contested, it becomes necessary to bring a lawsuit. The defendant has the option to respond to the Complaint.

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

Duty of Care

In a negligence suit the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant was obligated to act with reasonable care. The majority of people owe this obligation to everyone else, however those who take the driving wheel of a motorized vehicle are obligated to others in their area of operation. This includes not causing car accidents.

Courtrooms evaluate an individual's behavior with what a normal person would do in the same circumstances to establish what is reasonable standards of care. In the event of medical malpractice experts are typically required. Experts who have a greater understanding of a certain field may be held to a higher standard of medical care.

If someone violates their duty of care, they could cause harm to the victim and/or their property. The victim is then required to establish that the defendant's breach of their duty resulted in the harm and damages they suffered. Proving causation is an essential element in any negligence case and requires looking at both the actual causes of the injury damages as well as the proximate reason for the injury or damage.

For instance, if someone runs a red stop sign then it's likely that they'll be hit by another car. If their car is damaged, they'll be responsible for the repairs. But the reason for the crash could be a cut from the brick, which then develops into a potentially dangerous infection.

Breach of Duty

The second aspect of negligence is the breach of duty committed by the defendant. The breach of duty must be proved in order to receive compensation for personal injury claims. A breach of duty is when the actions of the at-fault party fall short of what a normal person would do under similar circumstances.

A doctor, for example is a professional with a range of professional obligations towards his patients. These professional obligations stem from the law of the state and licensing bodies. Drivers are obliged to take care of other drivers and pedestrians, and adhere to traffic laws. Drivers who violate this obligation and results in an accident is responsible for the victim's injuries.

Lawyers can use the "reasonable persons" standard to establish that there is a duty of caution and then demonstrate that defendant did not comply with the standard in his actions. The jury will decide if the defendant complied with or did not meet the standards.

The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defendant's negligence was the sole cause of the plaintiff's 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 wasn't what caused your bicycle accident. Because of this, the causation issue is often contested by the defendants in case of a crash.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal link between the defendant's breach of duty and the injuries. For instance, if a plaintiff sustained a neck injury from a rear-end collision and his or her lawyer could argue that the collision was the cause of the injury. Other factors that contributed to the collision, such as being in a stationary car are not considered to be culpable and will not impact the jury’s determination of the fault.

For psychological injuries However, the connection between a negligent act and an victim's afflictions may be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff has a an uneasy childhood, a bad relationship with his or her parents, used alcohol and drugs, or suffered prior unemployment could have a influence on the severity of the psychological issues suffers from following an accident, however, the courts typically look at these factors as an element of the background conditions that led to the accident from which the plaintiff's injury occurred, rather than as an independent reason for the injuries.

It is essential to speak with an experienced attorney should you be involved in a serious accident. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience representing clients in motor vehicle accident attorneys vehicle accidents, commercial and business litigation, as well as personal injury cases. Our lawyers have built working relationships with independent doctors in different areas of expertise as well as experts in computer simulations as well as reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

In motor vehicle litigation, a person can get both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages encompasses all financial costs that can easily be added up and calculated as an overall amount, including medical expenses or lost wages, repair to property, and even the possibility of future financial loss, like the loss of earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages such as suffering and pain, as well as loss of enjoyment of living are not able to be reduced to cash. The damages must be proven by a wide array of evidence, including depositions of family members or friends of the plaintiff medical records, as well as other expert witness testimony.

In the event of multiple defendants, courts will typically employ comparative fault rules to determine the amount of total damages that should be divided between them. This requires the jury to determine how much responsibility each defendant incurred in the accident, and then divide the total damages awarded by that percentage of the fault. New York law however, does not allow for this. 1602 exempts owners of vehicles from the rule of comparative negligence in the event of injuries suffered by drivers of trucks or cars. The process of determining whether the presumption is permissive is complex. The majority of the time the only way to prove that the owner denied permission for the driver to operate the vehicle will be able to overcome the presumption.