공지사항

Motor Vehicle Litigation

When liability is contested then it is necessary to start a lawsuit. The Defendant will then have the opportunity to respond to the complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that, should a jury find that you are responsible for an accident and you are found to be at fault, your damages will be reduced according to your percentage of blame. There is a caveat to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes the owners of vehicles that are rented or leased by minors.

Duty of Care

In a case of negligence the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the duty of care toward them. This duty is owed by all people, however those who operate a vehicle owe an even greater obligation to other people in their field. This includes ensuring that they do not cause accidents in Motor Vehicle Law vehicles.

Courtrooms compare an individual's actions to what a typical individual would do under the same circumstances to determine what constitutes reasonable standards of care. Expert witnesses are frequently required in cases involving medical negligence. Experts with a higher level of expertise of a specific area may be held to the highest standards of care than other individuals in similar situations.

A person's breach of their duty of care can cause injury to a victim or their property. The victim is then required to demonstrate that the defendant did not fulfill their duty and caused the harm or damage they sustained. Proving causation is a critical part of any negligence case and requires investigating both the primary basis of the injury or damages as well as the proximate reason for the injury or damage.

If someone is driving through a stop sign then they are more likely to be hit by another vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll be responsible for the repairs. The reason for the crash might be a cut in bricks, which later turn into a deadly infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by the defendant is the second factor of negligence that must be proven to win compensation in a personal injury lawsuit. A breach of duty occurs when the at-fault party's actions are not in line with what reasonable people would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor has many professional obligations to his patients. These obligations stem from the law of the state and licensing authorities. Drivers have a duty to take care of other drivers and pedestrians, and to obey traffic laws. Any driver who fails to adhere to this duty and causes an accident is responsible for the injuries suffered by the victim.

Lawyers can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to establish the existence of the duty of care and then prove that the defendant did not satisfy the standard through 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 primary cause for the injuries. It is more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. For instance the defendant could have crossed a red light, however, the act wasn't the proximate cause of the crash. Causation is often contested in cases of crash by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle lawyers vehicle cases the plaintiff must establish that there is a causal connection between the breach by the defendant and their injuries. For instance, if a plaintiff sustained a neck injury from a rear-end collision, his or her lawyer could argue that the accident caused the injury. Other factors that are necessary for the collision to occur, like being in a stationary vehicle, are not culpable, and do not affect the jury's determination of liability.

It is possible to prove a causal link between a negligent action and the psychological issues of the plaintiff. The fact that the plaintiff suffered from a troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with his or her parents, used alcohol and drugs or had previous unemployment may have some influence on the severity the psychological problems he or suffers from following a crash, but the courts generally view these factors as an element of the background conditions from which the plaintiff's accident resulted rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

If you've been involved in a serious motor vehicle lawsuit vehicle accident it is essential to consult an experienced attorney. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have extensive experience in representing clients in motor vehicle settlement vehicle accident cases, business and commercial litigation, as well as personal injury cases. Our lawyers have established working relationships with independent doctors across a variety of specialties as well as expert witnesses in accidents reconstruction and computer simulations, and with private investigators.

Damages

In motor vehicle litigation, a plaintiff can seek both economic and noneconomic damages. The first type of damages covers any monetary costs that can be easily added up and calculated as a sum, such as medical treatment, lost wages, property repair and even future financial losses like a decrease in earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of living, cannot be reduced to money. These damages must be proved by a wide array of evidence, including depositions of family members and friends of the plaintiff medical records, depositions, or other expert witness testimony.

In cases where there are multiple defendants, courts typically use the comparative fault rule to determine the amount of damages that must be divided between them. This requires the jury to determine how much fault each defendant incurred in the accident and then divide the total damages award by the percentage of fault. New York law however, Motor vehicle law does not permit this. 1602 specifically exempts owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule with respect to injuries suffered by driver of those cars and trucks. The process of determining whether the presumption is permissive is complicated. The majority of the time the only way to prove that the owner was not able to grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle will be sufficient to overturn the presumption.