공지사항

Motor Vehicle Litigation

When liability is contested, it becomes necessary to bring a lawsuit. The defendant has the option to respond to the complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that, in the event that a jury determines that you are responsible for an accident the amount of damages you will be reduced according to your percentage of blame. This rule does not apply to the owners of vehicles that are that are rented or leased out to minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence lawsuit the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant was obligated to act with reasonable care. Most people owe this duty to everyone else, however those who take the wheel of a motor vehicle accident lawyer vehicle have a higher obligation to others in their area of operation. This includes ensuring that they do not cause accidents in motor vehicles.

Courtrooms examine an individual's conduct to what a typical individual would do under the same circumstances to establish what is a reasonable standard of care. Expert witnesses are frequently required in cases of medical malpractice. Experts who have a greater understanding of a certain field may be held to a higher standard of medical care.

A person's breach of their duty of care can cause harm to the victim or their property. The victim is then required to demonstrate that the defendant did not fulfill their obligation and caused the damage or damage they sustained. Causation is an essential element of any negligence claim. It requires proof of both the actual and proximate causes of the injury and damages.

For example, if someone is stopped at a red light there is a good chance that they'll be hit by another car. If their vehicle is damaged, they will be responsible for the repairs. The actual cause of a crash could be caused by a brick cut that develops into an infection.

Breach of Duty

The second aspect of negligence is the breach of duty by the defendant. The breach of duty must be proved for compensation for personal injury claims. A breach of duty is when the actions of the at-fault party do not match what a normal person would do under similar circumstances.

For instance, a physician has a variety of professional obligations to his patients that are governed by state law and licensing boards. Drivers are required to be considerate of other drivers and pedestrians, as well as to follow traffic laws. Drivers who violate this obligation and results in an accident is responsible for the injuries sustained by the victim.

A lawyer can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of the duty of care, and then show that the defendant failed to comply with the standard in his actions. It is a matter of fact that the jury has to decide whether the defendant met the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also establish that the breach of duty of the defendant was the primary cause for his or her injuries. This can be more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. For example it is possible that a defendant crossed 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 case of a crash by the defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases the plaintiff must prove a causal link between the breach of the defendant and the injuries. If the plaintiff suffered an injury to the neck in an accident that involved rear-end collisions the attorney for the plaintiff 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 vehicle is not culpable and will not affect the jury’s determination of the fault.

For psychological injuries However, the connection between a negligent act and an victim's afflictions may 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, abused alcohol and drugs or 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 an element of the background conditions from which the plaintiff's accident arose rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

It is crucial to consult an experienced lawyer should you be involved in a serious Motor Vehicle Accident Attorney vehicle accident. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP, have extensive experience in representing clients in personal injury, commercial and business litigation and motor vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have developed working relationships with independent physicians in many areas of expertise as well as experts in computer simulations and reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

In motor vehicle litigation, a plaintiff may get both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages encompasses the costs of monetary value that are easily added together and summed up into an overall amount, including medical expenses as well as lost wages, repairs to property, or even a future financial loss, for instance diminished 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 monetary value. The damages must be proven through extensive evidence such as depositions of family members or friends of the plaintiff medical records, as well as other expert witness testimony.

In cases that involve multiple defendants, Courts will often use the concept of comparative negligence to decide how much of the total damages awarded should be split between them. The jury has to determine the percentage of blame each defendant has for the incident, and divide the total amount of damages awarded by the same percentage. New York law however, does not allow for this. 1602 disqualifies vehicle owners from the rule of comparative negligence in cases where injuries are sustained by the drivers of trucks or cars. The method of determining if the presumption is permissive or not is complex. The majority of the time it is only a clear evidence that the owner refused permission to the driver to operate the vehicle will be able to overcome the presumption.