• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Motor Vehicle Litigation

When a claim for liability is litigated and the liability is disputed, it is necessary to bring a lawsuit. The Defendant will then have the chance to respond to the complaint.

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

Duty of Care

In a negligence lawsuit the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed them a duty to act with reasonable care. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, Motor Vehicle accident Lawyers but those who are behind the steering wheel of a motor vehicle accident lawyers vehicle are obligated to the people in their area of activity. This includes ensuring that there are no accidents in motor vehicles.

Courtrooms compare an individual's actions to what a typical person would do under similar circumstances to establish what is a reasonable standard of care. In cases of medical malpractice experts are often required. Experts who have a superior understanding in a specific field could be held to a higher standard of care than other people in similar situations.

A person's breach of their duty of care can cause harm to the victim or their property. The victim is then required to show that the defendant violated their duty and caused the harm or damages they sustained. Proving causation is a critical aspect of any negligence claim and requires considering both the actual basis of the injury or damages as well as the reason for the damage or injury.

For instance, if a person is stopped at a red light then it's likely that they'll be hit by a car. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll be responsible for the repairs. But the reason for the crash might 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 an individual defendant. This must be proved in order to obtain compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty is when the actions taken by the at-fault person are insufficient to what an ordinary person would do in similar circumstances.

For example, a doctor has a variety of professional obligations to his patients that are governed by laws of the state and licensing boards. Drivers are bound to protect other motorists and pedestrians, and to respect traffic laws. When a driver breaches this duty of care and results in an accident, the driver is liable for the injuries suffered by the victim.

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 comply with the standard in his actions. The jury will decide if the defendant fulfilled or did not meet the standards.

The plaintiff must also establish that the breach of duty of the defendant was the main cause of the injuries. It is more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. A defendant could have driven through a red light, but that's not what caused the crash on your bicycle. This is why causation is often contested by defendants in collision cases.

Causation

In motor vehicle accident law firm vehicle cases the plaintiff must establish a causal link between defendant's breach and their injuries. If a plaintiff suffered neck injuries as a result of an accident with rear-end damage the attorney for the plaintiff will argue that the incident caused the injury. Other factors necessary to cause the collision, such as being in a stationary vehicle, are not culpable, and will not influence the jury’s determination of fault.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between a negligent act and an victim's afflictions may 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 had previous unemployment may have some impact on the severity of the psychological problems he or she suffers after an accident, however, motor Vehicle accident lawyers the courts generally view these factors as an element of the background conditions that caused the accident occurred, rather than as an independent cause of the injuries.

If you have been in a serious motor vehicle accident, it is important to speak with an experienced attorney. The attorneys at Arnold & Clifford, LLP have years of experience representing clients in personal injury as well as commercial and business litigation, and motor vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have formed working relationships with independent doctors in a range of specialties including expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations as well as with private investigators.

Damages

The damages that plaintiffs can claim in motor vehicle litigation include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages covers any monetary expenses that can be easily added up and calculated as a total, for example, medical treatment, lost wages, property repair, and even future financial losses such as diminished earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages, such as suffering and pain, and loss of enjoyment of living cannot be reduced to monetary value. However the damages must be established to exist through extensive evidence, such as deposition testimony of the plaintiff's close family members and friends medical records, other expert witness testimony.

In cases that involve multiple defendants, Courts will often use the rules of comparative negligence to determine the percentage of damages award should be allocated between them. The jury must determine how much responsibility each defendant was at fault for the incident and then divide the total amount of damages by the percentage of fault. New York law however, doesn't allow this. 1602 specifically excludes owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule when it comes to injuries suffered by driver of those cars and trucks. The method of determining if the presumption is permissive is complicated. Typically there is only a clear proof that the owner did not grant permission for the driver to operate the vehicle can overrule the presumption.