공지사항

Motor Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is necessary when liability is contested. The defendant is entitled 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 an accident the damages you incur will be reduced according to your percentage of fault. This rule is not applicable to the owners of vehicles that are that are leased or rented to minors.

Duty of Care

In a lawsuit for negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was obligated to exercise reasonable care. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, however those who are behind the steering wheel of a motor vehicle legal vehicle are obligated to other people in their field of activity. This includes ensuring that they do not cause accidents with motor vehicle attorneys vehicles.

Courtrooms assess an individual's actions with what a normal person would do under the same circumstances to determine what constitutes a reasonable standard of care. In the event of medical negligence, expert witnesses are usually required. Experts with a higher level of expertise of a specific area may be held to the highest standards of care than other people in similar situations.

A person's breach of their duty of care may cause harm to the victim or their property. The victim has to prove that the defendant's breach of their duty caused the injury and damages that they suffered. Causation is an essential element of any negligence claim. It requires proving both the proximate and real causes of the damages and injuries.

For instance, if a person runs a red light, it's likely that they'll be hit by another car. If their vehicle is damaged, they will be responsible for repairs. The reason for the crash could be a cut on the brick, which then develops into a dangerous infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by the defendant is the second element of negligence that must be proved in order to secure compensation in a personal injury claim. A breach of duty occurs when the actions of the at-fault party are not in line with what a normal person would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for example is a professional with a range of professional obligations to his patients that are derived from the law of the state and licensing authorities. Drivers are obliged to protect other motorists and motor vehicle litigation pedestrians, and respect traffic laws. Drivers who violate this duty and causes an accident is responsible for the victim's injuries.

A lawyer can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of the duty of care, and then prove that the defendant did not meet the standard in his actions. It is a question of fact for the jury to decide if the defendant fulfilled the standard or motor vehicle litigation not.

The plaintiff must also prove that the breach of duty by the defendant was the primary cause of the plaintiff's injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. A defendant might have walked through a red light but that's not the cause of your bicycle accident. Because of this, causation is often challenged by the defendants in cases of crash.

Causation

In motor vehicle-related cases, the plaintiff must prove a causal link between the breach by the defendant and their injuries. If a plaintiff suffers neck injuries in an accident that involved rear-end collisions, his or her attorney will argue that the incident was the reason for the injury. Other elements that could have caused the collision, such as being in a stationary car are not considered to be culpable and won't affect the jury’s determination of the cause of the accident.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between a negligent act and the affected plaintiff's symptoms can be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff suffered from a an uneasy childhood, a bad relationship with their parents, was a user of alcohol and drugs or prior unemployment could have a influence on the severity the psychological issues suffers following a crash, but the courts typically look at these factors as part of the circumstances that caused the accident in which the plaintiff was triggered, not as a separate cause of the injuries.

If you've been involved in a serious motor vehicle crash It is imperative to consult an experienced attorney. The attorneys at Arnold & Clifford, LLP have years of experience representing clients in personal injury cases, business and commercial litigation, and motor vehicle attorneys vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have developed working relationships with independent doctors in many areas of expertise as well as experts in computer simulations and reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

The damages that plaintiffs can claim in motor vehicle litigation include both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages is any monetary expenses that can be easily added up and calculated as an amount, like medical expenses loss of wages, property repair and even future financial losses, such as diminished earning capacity.

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

In the event of multiple defendants, courts will typically apply the rules of comparative fault to determine the amount of damages that must be divided between them. The jury must determine the percentage of fault each defendant has for the accident and then divide the total damages awarded by the same percentage. New York law however, does not allow this. 1602 does not exempt vehicle owners from the rule of comparative negligence in cases where injuries are caused by drivers of cars or trucks. The resulting analysis of whether the presumption of permissive usage is applicable is a bit nebulous and usually only a convincing evidence that the owner explicitly was not granted permission to operate the car will be sufficient to overcome it.