Motor Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is necessary when liability is contested. The defendant will then have the opportunity to respond to the complaint.

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

Duty of Care

In a case of negligence the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant was bound by the duty of care towards them. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, however those who take the car have an even higher duty to the other drivers in their zone of activity. This includes not causing car accidents.

Courtrooms examine an individual's conduct to what a typical individual would do in the same conditions to determine an acceptable standard of care. Expert witnesses are often required when cases involve medical malpractice. People with superior knowledge in specific fields could be held to a higher standard of medical care.

A person's breach of their duty of care can cause harm to the victim or their property. The victim has to demonstrate that the defendant did not fulfill their duty and caused the injury or damage they sustained. Proving 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 reason for the damage or injury.

For instance, if a person has a red light, it's likely that they'll be hit by a vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll be responsible for repairs. The actual cause of an accident 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 aspect of negligence that has to be proved to obtain compensation in a personal injury suit. A breach of duty happens when the at-fault party's actions are not in line with what reasonable people would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for instance, has several professional duties to his patients that are governed by state law and licensing boards. Motorists owe a duty of care to other drivers and pedestrians on the road to drive in a safe manner and adhere to traffic laws. If a driver violates this obligation and causes an accident is accountable for the injuries suffered by the victim.

Lawyers can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of the duty of care, and then show that the defendant did not satisfy the standard through his actions. It is a question of fact that the jury has to decide whether the defendant met the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also prove that the defendant's negligence was the direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries. It can be more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. A defendant could have driven through a red light, but that's not the cause of the accident on your bicycle. This is why causation is often challenged by the defendants in cases of crash.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal link between the defendant's breach of duty and his or her injuries. If the plaintiff suffered an injury to the neck in a rear-end collision, his or her attorney would argue that the accident was the cause of the injury. Other factors necessary to cause the collision, such as being in a stationary car, are not culpable, and will not influence the jury's determination of the degree of fault.

It can be difficult to prove a causal link between an act of negligence and the psychological symptoms of the plaintiff. The reality that the plaintiff experienced a troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with his or her parents, was a user of alcohol and drugs or previous unemployment may have some bearing on the severity of the psychological issues she suffers after an accident, however, the courts typically view these elements as an element of the background conditions that caused the accident in which the plaintiff occurred, rather than as an independent cause of the injuries.

If you have been in an accident involving a brainerd motor vehicle accident lawyer vehicle that was serious it is crucial to consult 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 doctors in many specialties, as well experts in computer simulations and reconstruction of accident.

Damages

In Jamesburg Motor Vehicle Accident Attorney vehicle litigation, a plaintiff can recover both economic and noneconomic damages. The first category of damages is any monetary costs that can be easily added to calculate a total, for example, medical treatment and lost wages, property repairs, and even future financial losses such as diminished earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to recover non-economic damages like the suffering of others and the loss of enjoyment of life, which cannot be reduced to a monetary amount. However these damages must be proven to exist by a variety of evidence, including deposition testimony of the plaintiff's close family members and friends medical records, other expert witness testimony.

In cases involving 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 the percentage of fault each defendant is accountable for the accident and then divide the total amount of damages awarded by that percentage. New York law however, does not allow for this. 1602 specifically exempts owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule in relation to injuries sustained by drivers of these trucks and cars. The analysis to determine whether the presumption of permissiveness is complicated. Typically there is only a clear proof that the owner refused permission for the driver to operate the vehicle will be able to overcome the presumption.