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

Motor Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is necessary in cases where liability is challenged. The defendant is entitled 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 based on your percentage of fault. There is a slight 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 show that the defendant was obligated to exercise reasonable care. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, however those who are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle accident lawyer vehicle are obligated to other people in their field of operation. This includes ensuring that they don't cause motor vehicle accidents.

Courtrooms compare an individual's actions to what a typical individual would do under similar conditions to determine an acceptable standard of care. Expert witnesses are often required in cases involving medical negligence. Experts with a higher level of expertise in a particular field can be held to an higher standard of care than others in similar situations.

A person's breach of their duty of care can cause harm to a victim, or their property. The victim is then required to show that the defendant violated their duty and caused the injury or damages they suffered. Proving causation is a critical aspect of any negligence case and involves taking into consideration both the real causes of the injury damages as well as the reason for the injury or damage.

For example, if someone has a red light and is stopped, they will be hit by a vehicle. If their car is damaged they'll be accountable for the repairs. The real cause of a crash could be caused by a fracture in the brick that leads to an infection.

Breach of Duty

A defendant's breach of duty is the second factor of negligence that must be proved in order to receive compensation in a personal injury claim. A breach of duty is when the actions of the person who is at fault do not match what a normal person would do under similar circumstances.

A doctor, for instance, has several professional duties to his patients, arising from the law of the state and licensing boards. Drivers have a duty to take care of other drivers and pedestrians, and to follow traffic laws. A driver who breaches this obligation and causes an accident is accountable 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 demonstrate that the defendant did not meet the standard in his actions. The jury will determine if the defendant met or did not meet the standards.

The plaintiff must also prove that the breach of duty of the defendant was the primary cause for the injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty and breach. For example it is possible that a defendant been a motorist who ran a red light, however, the act was not the sole reason for your bicycle crash. This is why causation is frequently disputed by the defendants in case of a crash.

Causation

In motor vehicle accident lawyers vehicle cases, the plaintiff must establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and his or her injuries. If a plaintiff suffers neck injuries in an accident that involved rear-end collisions and his or her attorney will argue that the incident was the reason for the injury. Other factors that contributed to the collision, like being in a stationary vehicle are not considered to be culpable and will not affect the jury's decision on fault.

For psychological injuries However, the connection between a negligent act and the injured plaintiff's symptoms may be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff had a troubled childhood, motor vehicle accident poor relationship with their parents, was a user of drugs and alcohol or experienced previous unemployment may have some bearing on the severity of the psychological issues he or suffers from following a crash, but the courts typically view these elements as an element of the background conditions that caused the accident resulted rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

If you have been in a serious motor vehicle accident It is imperative to consult 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 [writes in the official Pineoys blog] cases. Our lawyers have formed working relationships with independent physicians across a variety of specialties including expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations, and with private investigators.

Damages

In motor vehicle litigation, a plaintiff may recover both economic and noneconomic damages. The first type of damages is all monetary costs which can be easily added together and summed up into a total, such as medical treatment or lost wages, repair to property, and even future financial loss, like the loss of earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to recover non-economic damages, including pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, which cannot be reduced to a monetary amount. The proof of these damages is with a large amount of evidence, such as depositions of family members and friends of the plaintiff, medical records, or other expert witness testimony.

In cases that involve multiple defendants, Courts will often use comparative negligence rules to determine how much of the total damages award should be allocated between them. This requires the jury to determine how much fault each defendant was at fault for the accident, and then divide the total damages award by that percentage of blame. However, New York law 1602 specifically exempts owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule in relation to injuries suffered by driver of these trucks and cars. The process of determining whether the presumption is permissive is complex. In general it is only a clear evidence that the owner denied permission for the driver to operate the vehicle can be sufficient to overturn the presumption.