공지사항

Motor Vehicle Litigation

When a claim for liability is litigated then it is necessary to make a complaint. The defendant will then have 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 the damages you incur will be reduced according to your percentage of fault. This rule does not apply to owners of vehicles rented out or leased to minors.

Duty of Care

In a case of negligence the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant had the duty of care towards them. Nearly everyone owes this obligation to everyone else, but those who sit behind the wheel of a motor vehicle lawsuit vehicle are obligated to other people in their field of operation. This includes ensuring that they don't cause accidents with motor vehicle lawyers vehicles.

In courtrooms, the standard of care is determined by comparing the actions of an individual to what a normal person would do in the same situations. Expert witnesses are often required in cases involving medical malpractice. Experts with a higher level of expertise in a specific field could be held to the highest standards of care than others in similar situations.

A breach of a person's duty of care can cause harm to a victim or their property. The victim must prove that the defendant breached their duty and caused the injury or damages they suffered. Proving causation is a critical part of any negligence case which involves considering both the actual cause of the injury or damages as well as the reason for the injury or damage.

If a driver is caught running a stop sign and fails to obey the stop sign, they could be struck by another vehicle. If their car is damaged, they will be required to pay for repairs. But the actual cause of the accident could be a cut from bricks that later develop into a deadly infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by a defendant is the second element of negligence that must be proved in order to receive compensation in a personal injury lawsuit. A breach of duty is when the actions of the at-fault person are insufficient to what a normal person would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor, has a number of professional obligations to his patients, which stem from state law and licensing bodies. Motorists owe a duty of care to other drivers and pedestrians on the road to drive safely and obey traffic laws. If a driver violates this obligation of care and results in an accident, he is responsible for the injuries suffered by the victim.

A lawyer can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of a duty of care and then demonstrate that the defendant did not meet the standard in his actions. It is a matter of fact for the jury to decide whether the defendant was in compliance with the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also establish that the defendant's breach of duty was the main cause of the injuries. This can be more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty and breach. For instance an individual defendant could have been a motorist who ran a red light, but his or her action was not the sole cause of your bike crash. The issue of causation is often challenged in crash cases by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle compensation vehicle cases the plaintiff must establish that there is a causal connection between the breach of the defendant and their injuries. For instance, if a plaintiff suffered a neck injury from an accident that involved rear-ends the lawyer might argue that the collision caused the injury. Other factors that are necessary to produce the collision, like being in a stationary vehicle, are not culpable and will not affect the jury's decision of liability.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between an act of negligence and an injured plaintiff's symptoms could be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff had troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with his or her parents, experimented with alcohol and drugs or previous unemployment may have some influence on the severity of the psychological problems he or suffers following a crash, but the courts typically consider these factors as part of the background circumstances from which the plaintiff's accident arose rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

If you have been in a serious motor vehicle crash it is crucial to speak with an experienced attorney. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience in representing clients in motor vehicle accidents cases, business and commercial litigation, as well as personal injury cases. Our lawyers have developed working relationships with independent doctors across a variety of specialties, expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations as well as with private investigators.

Damages

The damages a plaintiff can recover in a motor vehicle lawsuit include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages includes any monetary costs that are easily added up and calculated as an amount, like medical expenses, lost wages, motor vehicle lawsuit property repairs, and even future financial losses, like diminished earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages, like suffering and pain, as well as loss of enjoyment, cannot be reduced to money. These damages must be established through extensive evidence like depositions from family members and friends of the plaintiff medical records, as well as other expert witness testimony.

In the event of multiple defendants, courts will typically use the comparative fault rule to determine the amount of damages that must be divided between them. The jury has to determine the amount of fault each defendant is accountable for the incident and then divide the total damages awarded by the same percentage. However, New York law 1602 specifically exempts owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule with respect to injuries suffered by driver of these trucks and cars. The method of determining if the presumption is permissive is complex. In general, only a clear demonstration that the owner refused permission to the driver to operate the vehicle will overcome the presumption.