공지사항

motor vehicle attorney Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is necessary when liability is in dispute. The defendant then has the opportunity to respond to the complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that when a jury finds you to be responsible for motor vehicle case an accident the damages you incur will be reduced based on your percentage of blame. This rule is not applicable to owners of vehicles which are rented out or leased to minors.

Duty of Care

In a lawsuit for negligence the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was obligated to act with reasonable care. This duty is due to all people, however those who operate a motor vehicle legal have an even higher duty to others in their field. This includes not causing accidents in motor vehicle law vehicles.

In courtrooms the standards of care are determined by comparing an individual's behavior with what a normal person would do in the same situations. In cases of medical malpractice expert witnesses are typically required. Experts who have a superior understanding of a specific area may also be held to an higher standard of care than other individuals in similar situations.

A breach of a person's obligation of care can cause harm to a victim, or their property. The victim is then required to prove that the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm and damages they suffered. Causation is an essential element of any negligence claim. It involves proving both the actual and proximate causes of the damages and injuries.

If someone runs the stop sign, they are likely to be hit by a car. If their car is damaged, they will be responsible for the repairs. But the actual cause of the crash could be a cut in the brick, which then develops into a serious 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 in a personal injury case. A breach of duty is when the actions of the at-fault party do not match what a normal person would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for example is a professional with a range of professional duties towards his patients that are derived from the law of the state and licensing authorities. Drivers are required to be considerate of other drivers as well as pedestrians, and to respect traffic laws. If a driver fails to comply with this duty of care and results in an accident, the driver is accountable for the injuries sustained by the victim.

A lawyer can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to establish the existence of the duty of care and then show that the defendant failed to comply with the standard in his actions. The jury will decide if the defendant complied with or did not meet the standard.

The plaintiff must also prove that the breach of duty of the defendant was the primary cause for the injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty and breach. For instance it is possible that a defendant crossed a red line, but his or her action was not the primary cause of your bike crash. For this reason, causation is often challenged by the defendants in cases of crash.

Causation

In motor vehicle lawyer vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal link between the defendant's breach of duty and his or her injuries. For instance, if a plaintiff suffered a neck injury from a rear-end collision and his or her lawyer would argue that the accident caused the injury. Other elements that are required to cause the collision, like being in a stationary vehicle are not culpable and do not affect the jury's determination of the liability.

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 his or her parents, used drugs and alcohol or experienced previous unemployment may have some bearing on the severity of the psychological issues he or is suffering from following a crash, but the courts typically consider these factors as part of the background circumstances that caused the accident in which the plaintiff arose rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

It is crucial to consult an experienced attorney should you be involved in a serious car accident. The attorneys at Arnold & Clifford, LLP have years of experience representing clients in personal injury cases, business and commercial litigation, and motor vehicle litigation vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have developed relationships with independent physicians in a range of specialties including expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations as well as with private investigators.

Damages

The damages a plaintiff may recover in a motor vehicle case include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages includes the costs of monetary value that can easily be added up and then calculated into a total, such as medical treatment as well as lost wages, Motor Vehicle Case repairs to property, or even a future financial losses, such as the loss of earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to seek non-economic damages like pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life which cannot be reduced to a monetary amount. However the damages must be established to exist through extensive evidence, including deposition testimony from the plaintiff's family members and close friends medical records, other expert witness testimony.

In the event of multiple defendants, courts will typically use the comparative fault rule to determine the amount of damages to be split between them. The jury must determine how much responsibility each defendant had for the accident and then divide the total damages awarded by that percentage of the fault. However, New York law 1602 excludes vehicle owners from the comparative negligence rule in the event of injuries sustained by the drivers of cars or trucks. The method of determining if the presumption of permissiveness is complicated. Most of the time there is only a clear proof that the owner denied permission to the driver to operate the vehicle can overcome the presumption.