• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

motor vehicle accident lawyer Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is necessary in cases where liability is challenged. The defendant has the option to respond to the Complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that, should a jury find that you are responsible for an accident and you are found to be at fault, your damages will be reduced based on your percentage of fault. There is a caveat 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 demonstrate that the defendant was obligated to act with reasonable care. This duty is owed by all people, however those who drive a vehicle owe an even greater duty to other drivers in their field. This includes ensuring that they do not cause motor vehicle accidents.

Courtrooms examine an individual's conduct to what a typical individual would do in similar circumstances to determine an acceptable standard 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 can be held to an higher standard of care than other individuals in similar situations.

If a person violates their duty of care, it could cause injury to the victim or their property. The victim then has to prove that the defendant acted in breach of their obligation and caused the damage or damage that they suffered. The proof of causation is an essential aspect of any negligence case which involves considering both the actual cause of the injury or damages as well as the proximate cause of the injury or damage.

If someone is driving through the stop sign and fails to obey the stop sign, they could be hit by another vehicle. If their car is damaged they'll be accountable for the repairs. The real cause of an accident could be a brick cut that develops into 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 lawsuit. A breach of duty happens when the actions of the party at fault do not match what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for instance, has a variety of professional obligations to his patients stemming from state law and licensing boards. Drivers have a duty to protect other motorists as well as pedestrians, and to obey traffic laws. Any driver who fails to adhere to this obligation and creates an accident is accountable for the injuries suffered by the victim.

A lawyer can use the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of the duty of care, and then prove that the defendant did not meet that standard in his actions. It is a question of fact that the jury has to decide if the defendant met the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the breach of duty by the defendant was the direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries. This can be more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty and breach. A defendant could have driven through a red light but that's not what caused the crash on your bicycle. In this way, causation is frequently disputed by defendants in crash cases.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases the plaintiff must establish a causal link between breach by the defendant and their injuries. If the plaintiff sustained neck injuries as a result of an accident with rear-end damage, his or her attorney will argue that the crash caused the injury. Other factors that are necessary to cause the collision, like being in a stationary car is not culpable and will not affect 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 suffered from a a troubled childhood, poor relationship with his or her parents, was a user of alcohol and drugs or had previous unemployment may have some impact on the severity of the psychological issues he or she suffers after an accident, however, the courts typically look at these factors as an element of the background conditions from which the plaintiff's accident arose rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

It is imperative to consult an experienced lawyer should you be involved in a serious car accident. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience in representing clients in motor vehicle accident as well as business and commercial litigation, and personal injury cases. Our lawyers have established working relationships with independent physicians in various specialties as well as experts in computer simulations and reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

The damages a plaintiff can recover in motor vehicle litigation include both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages comprises any financial costs that can easily be added to calculate a total, for example, medical expenses loss of wages, property repairs, and even future financial losses, like a diminished earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages, like suffering and pain, as well as loss of enjoyment of life can't be reduced to monetary value. However the damages must be established to exist by a variety of evidence, including deposition testimony from plaintiff's family members and close friends, medical records, and other expert witness testimony.

In cases involving multiple defendants, Courts will often use the rules of comparative negligence to determine how much of the damages award should be allocated between them. The jury must determine the proportion of fault each defendant is responsible for the incident and then divide the total damages awarded by the same percentage. However, New York law 1602 excludes vehicle owners from the comparative negligence rule in cases where injuries are caused by drivers of cars or trucks. The analysis to determine whether the presumption of permissiveness is complex. In general, only a clear demonstration that the owner did not grant permission for the driver to operate the vehicle can overcome the presumption.