Motor Vehicle Litigation
A lawsuit is required when liability is contested. The Defendant will then have the chance to respond to the complaint.
New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that, when a jury finds that you were at fault for an accident, your damages 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 case of negligence the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was bound by the duty of care towards them. Nearly everyone owes this obligation to everyone else, but those who are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle accident lawyers, More, vehicle are obligated to the other drivers in their zone of activity. This includes ensuring that there are no accidents in motor vehicles.
In courtrooms, the standards of care are determined by comparing the actions of an individual with what a normal person would do in the same circumstances. In the case of medical malpractice, expert witnesses are usually required. People with superior knowledge in specific fields could be held to a greater standard of treatment.
When someone breaches their duty of care, they could cause damage to the victim as well as their property. The victim is then required to prove that the defendant breached their duty of care and caused the injury or damages they sustained. The proof of causation is an essential part of any negligence case, and it involves looking at both the actual causes of the injury damages and the proximate reason for the injury or damage.
For example, if someone is stopped at a red light, it’s likely that they will be hit by a vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they’ll be responsible for repairs. But the reason for the crash could be a cut from the brick, which then develops into a deadly infection.
Breach of Duty
The second element of negligence is the breach of duty committed by a defendant. This must be proved in order to obtain compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty occurs when the actions of the person at fault aren’t in line with what reasonable people would do in similar circumstances.
For instance, a doctor is required to perform a number of professional duties for his patients, arising from laws of the state and licensing boards. Motorists have a duty of care to other motorists and pedestrians on the road to drive safely and obey traffic laws. When a driver breaches this duty of care and creates an accident, he is accountable for the injury suffered by the victim.
Lawyers can rely on the “reasonable person” standard to prove the existence of an obligation of care. The lawyer must then demonstrate that the defendant did not meet the standard in his actions. It is a question of fact for the jury 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 proximate cause of the injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. A defendant may have run through a red light but that’s not the cause of the bicycle accident. This is why causation is often challenged by the defendants in case of a crash.
Causation
In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff must prove a causal link between breach of the defendant and their injuries. For example, if the plaintiff suffered an injury to his neck in an accident that involved rear-ends the lawyer might argue that the accident caused the injury. Other factors that contributed to the collision, like being in a stationary vehicle is not culpable and will not influence the jury’s decision to determine the degree of fault.
For psychological injuries However, the connection between an act of negligence and an victim’s afflictions may be more difficult to establish. The reality that the plaintiff experienced a an unhappy childhood, a poor relationship with their parents, abused alcohol and drugs, or suffered previous unemployment may have some influence on the severity the psychological problems he or suffers following an accident, but courts typically consider these factors as part of the circumstances from which the plaintiff’s accident arose rather than an independent cause of the injuries.
It is imperative to consult an experienced attorney should you be involved in a serious accident. The attorneys 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 relationships with independent physicians across a variety of specialties and expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations, as well as with private investigators.
Damages
The damages that a plaintiff may recover in a motor vehicle case include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages comprises any financial costs that can easily be added up and calculated as the sum of medical expenses or lost 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 pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life which cannot be reduced to a dollar amount. The damages must be proven by a wide array of evidence, including depositions of family members or friends of the plaintiff, medical records, or other expert witness testimony.
In cases where there are multiple defendants, courts typically employ comparative fault rules to determine the amount of total damages to be split between them. The jury must determine the proportion of fault each defendant carries for the incident, and divide the total damages awarded by the percentage. New York law however, does not allow this. 1602 specifically exempts owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule in relation to injuries sustained by the driver of these trucks and cars. The method of determining if the presumption is permissive is complex. The majority of the time it is only a clear evidence that the owner did not grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle will be able to overcome the presumption.