motor vehicle lawyers Vehicle Litigation

When a claim for liability is litigated then it is necessary to bring a lawsuit. The defendant is entitled to respond to the Complaint.

New York follows pure comparative fault rules and, when a jury finds you to be the cause of the crash 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 owners of vehicles that are rented or leased to minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence suit the plaintiff must show that the defendant was obligated to act with reasonable care. The majority of people owe this obligation to everyone else, but individuals who get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle attorney vehicle have a greater obligation to the people in their area of operation. This includes ensuring that they do not cause car accidents.

Courtrooms examine an individual's conduct to what a typical individual would do in similar circumstances to determine an acceptable standard of care. In the case of medical malpractice expert witnesses are typically required. Experts who have a greater understanding of specific fields could be held to a higher standard of medical care.

A breach of a person's duty of care could cause harm to the victim or their property. The victim is then required to demonstrate that the defendant did not fulfill their obligation and caused the damage or damages they suffered. Proving causation is a critical aspect of any negligence case which involves looking at both the actual cause of the injury or damages as well as the proximate cause of the injury or damage.

For instance, if someone has a red light and is stopped, they will be hit by a vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they will have to pay for the repairs. The cause of a crash could be caused by a fracture in the brick that leads to an infection.

Breach of Duty

The second element of negligence is the breach of duty committed by a defendant. The breach of duty must be proved in order to receive compensation for personal injury claims. A breach of duty occurs when the actions of the person who is at fault do not match what an ordinary person would do under similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor, has a number of professional obligations towards his patients that are derived from the law of the state and licensing authorities. Motorists owe a duty care to other motorists and pedestrians on the road to be safe and follow traffic laws. If a driver violates this duty of care and results in an accident, he is liable for the injuries sustained by the victim.

A lawyer can use "reasonable persons" standard to prove that there is a duty of care and then demonstrate that defendant did not adhere to the standard in his actions. It is a matter of fact for the jury to decide whether the defendant met the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the breach of duty by the defendant was the main cause of the plaintiff's injuries. This can be more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. For instance an individual defendant could have run a red light but it's likely that his or her actions wasn't the proximate reason for your bicycle crash. Causation is often contested in crash cases by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle settlement vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal link between the defendant's breach of duty and their injuries. For instance, if the plaintiff suffered neck injuries as a result of an accident that involved rear-ends the lawyer will argue that the collision caused the injury. Other elements that could have caused the collision, like being in a stationary car is not culpable and will not influence the jury's decision to determine fault.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between an act of negligence and an victim's afflictions may be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff had an uneasy childhood, a bad relationship with their parents, was a user of drugs and alcohol or experienced previous unemployment may have some influence on the severity the psychological issues he or she suffers after a crash, but the courts typically view these elements as part of the background circumstances that led to the accident from which the plaintiff's injury occurred, rather than as an independent reason for the injuries.

It is crucial to consult an experienced attorney should you be involved in a serious accident. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP, have extensive experience in representing clients in personal injury, commercial and business litigation and motor vehicle claim vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have developed working relationships with independent medical professionals across a variety of specialties as well as expert witnesses in accidents reconstruction and computer simulations, and with private investigators.

Damages

In motor vehicle litigation, a person can recover both economic and noneconomic 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 repair, 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 dollar amount. The proof of these damages is through extensive evidence such as depositions of family members or friends of the plaintiff, medical records, or other expert witness testimony.

In cases where there are multiple defendants, Courts will often use comparative negligence rules to determine how much of the total damages awarded should be split between them. The jury must determine how much responsibility each defendant had for the accident and to then divide the total damages awarded by the percentage of blame. However, Motor Vehicle Litigation New York law 1602 specifically excludes owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule with respect to injuries sustained by the driver of these vehicles and trucks. The subsequent analysis of whether the presumption of permissiveness is applicable is a bit nebulous and usually only a convincing evidence that the owner specifically denied permission to operate the vehicle will overcome it.