공지사항

motor vehicle legal Vehicle Litigation

If the liability is challenged, it becomes necessary to start a lawsuit. The defendant is entitled to respond to the complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that if a jury finds that you were at fault for an accident the amount of damages you will be reduced based on your percentage of fault. There is an exception to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes owners of vehicles which are rented or leased by minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was bound by the duty of care towards them. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, however those who take the driving wheel of a motorized motor vehicle settlement are obligated to others in their area of activity. This includes not causing car accidents.

Courtrooms evaluate an individual's behavior to what a typical individual would do under similar circumstances to determine what constitutes an acceptable standard of care. In the event of medical malpractice, expert witnesses are usually required. Experts who have a greater understanding of the field could be held to a greater standard of care.

A breach of a person's duty of care may cause harm to a victim, or their property. The victim must establish that the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm and damages they suffered. Causation is an important part of any negligence claim. It involves proving the proximate and actual causes of the injuries and damages.

If a driver is caught running a stop sign, they are likely to be hit by another motor vehicle settlement. If their car is damaged, they will be responsible for the repairs. But the actual cause of the accident could be a cut in bricks that later develop into a dangerous infection.

Breach of Duty

The second aspect of negligence is the breach of duty by the defendant. The breach of duty must be proved in order to obtain compensation for a personal injury claim. A breach of duty happens when the actions of a party who is at fault fall short of what reasonable people would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for example has many professional obligations towards his patients. These obligations stem from the law of the state and licensing authorities. Motorists have a duty of care to other motorists and pedestrians on the road to drive safely and observe traffic laws. If a motorist violates this duty of care and results in an accident, the driver is accountable for the victim's injuries.

Lawyers can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of the duty of care, and then demonstrate that the defendant failed to satisfy the standard through his actions. It is a matter of fact for the jury to decide whether the defendant met the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defendant's negligence was the main cause of the plaintiff's injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. For example it is possible that a defendant crossed a red line, but it's likely that his or her actions wasn't the proximate reason for your bicycle crash. Causation is often contested in cases of crash by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle legal vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal link between the defendant's breach of duty and their injuries. For instance, if a plaintiff suffered a neck injury from an accident that involved rear-ends, his or her lawyer could argue that the collision caused the injury. Other factors that are needed to produce 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 injured plaintiff's symptoms could be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff suffered from a troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with his or her parents, experimented with alcohol and drugs or had previous unemployment may have some influence on the severity of the psychological issues he or motor vehicle case suffers following an accident, but courts generally view these factors as part of the context that led to the accident from which the plaintiff's injury arose rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

It is essential to speak with an experienced attorney should you be involved in a serious accident. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP have years of experience representing clients in personal injury as well as commercial and business litigation, as well as motor vehicle law vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have formed working relationships with independent physicians in many specialties, as well experts in computer simulations and reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

The damages that plaintiffs can seek in a motor vehicle case include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages covers any monetary costs that are easily added up and calculated as a total, for example, medical expenses, 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 suffering and pain, as well as loss of enjoyment of living cannot be reduced to monetary value. However the damages must be proven to exist by a variety of evidence, such as deposition testimony of the plaintiff's close family members and friends medical records, as well as other expert witness testimony.

In cases where there are multiple defendants, courts will typically use the comparative fault rule to determine the amount of damages that should be divided between them. The jury will determine the amount of fault each defendant is responsible for the accident and then divide the total damages awarded by the percentage. New York law however, does not allow this. 1602 exempts owners of vehicles from the rule of comparative negligence in cases where injuries are sustained by drivers of cars or trucks. The resulting analysis of whether the presumption of permissive usage applies is complicated, and typically only a clear showing that the owner explicitly denied permission to operate the car will be sufficient to overcome it.