공지사항

Motor Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is necessary when liability is in dispute. The defendant is entitled to respond to the complaint.

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

Duty of Care

In a negligence case the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant owed them a duty to exercise reasonable care. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, but individuals who get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle have a higher obligation to the people in their area of operation. This includes ensuring that they do not cause motor vehicle settlement vehicle accidents.

In courtrooms the quality of care is determined by comparing the actions of an individual with what a typical person would do in the same situations. In the event of medical malpractice expert witnesses are typically required. Experts with more experience in particular fields may be held to a greater standard of medical care.

A breach of a person's duty of care may cause harm to the victim or their property. The victim then has to prove that the defendant breached their duty of care and caused the injury or damage they sustained. Proving causation is an essential element in any negligence case and involves considering both the actual cause of the injury or damages as well as the reason for the damage or injury.

If a person is stopped at the stop sign it is likely that they will be hit by a car. If their car is damaged they'll be accountable for the repairs. But the actual cause of the accident could be a cut in the brick, which then develops into a dangerous infection.

Breach of Duty

A defendant's breach of duty is the second factor of negligence that must be proved in order to receive compensation in a personal injury claim. A breach of duty happens when the actions of the party at fault aren't in line with what reasonable people would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor 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 care for other drivers and pedestrians, and respect traffic laws. If a driver fails to comply with this duty of care and results in an accident, the driver is liable for the injuries sustained by the victim.

Lawyers can use the "reasonable individuals" standard to prove that there is a duty of caution and then show that the defendant did not meet this standard in his conduct. It is a matter of fact for the jury to decide if the defendant complied with the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also prove that the defendant's breach was the direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries. This can be more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. A defendant could have driven 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 cases of crash.

Causation

In motor vehicle attorneys vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and his or her injuries. If the plaintiff sustained neck injuries as a result of an accident that involved rear-end collisions and his or her attorney will argue that the incident was the reason for the injury. Other factors that are necessary to cause the collision, such as being in a stationary vehicle are not culpable and will not affect the jury's decision to determine the fault.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between an act of negligence and an affected plaintiff's symptoms can be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff suffered from a an unhappy childhood, a poor relationship with his or her parents, used alcohol and Motor Vehicle Case drugs or prior unemployment could have a impact on the severity of the psychological issues he or suffers following a crash, but the courts typically consider these factors as part of the background circumstances that caused the accident resulted rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

It is important to consult an experienced attorney if you have been involved in a serious accident. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have extensive experience in representing clients in motor vehicle lawsuit vehicle accidents as well as business and commercial litigation, as well as personal injury cases. Our lawyers have established working relationships with independent doctors with 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 case include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages includes any monetary expenses that can be easily added to calculate an amount, like 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, and loss of enjoyment are not able to be reduced to cash. However the damages must be established to exist with the help of extensive evidence, such as deposition testimony of the plaintiff's family members and close friends, medical records, and other expert witness testimony.

In cases that involve multiple defendants, Courts will often use the rules of comparative negligence to determine how much of the damages awarded should be divided between them. The jury has to determine the proportion of fault each defendant carries for the incident, and divide the total amount of damages awarded by that percentage. New York law however, does not permit this. 1602 does not exempt vehicle owners from the comparative negligence rule in cases where injuries are suffered by drivers of trucks or cars. The process to determine if the presumption is permissive or not is complex. Most of the time it is only a clear evidence that the owner denied permission for the driver to operate the vehicle can overcome the presumption.