Motor Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is required when liability is in dispute. The defendant then has the opportunity to respond to the complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that in the event that a jury determines you to be at fault for an accident, your damages will be reduced based on your percentage of blame. There is a caveat to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes the owners of vehicles that are that are rented or leased to minors.

Duty of Care

In a lawsuit for negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed them a duty to exercise reasonable care. This duty is due to everyone, but people who operate vehicles owe an even higher duty to other people in their field. This includes ensuring that they do not cause motor vehicle accidents.

Courtrooms examine an individual's conduct with what a normal person would do in similar conditions to determine an acceptable standard of care. Expert witnesses are often required in cases of medical malpractice. Experts with a superior understanding of the field could be held to a greater standard of medical care.

A breach of a person's duty of care can cause harm to a victim, or their property. The victim then has to demonstrate that the defendant did not fulfill their duty of care and caused the injury or damage that they suffered. Causation is an important part of any negligence claim. It involves proving both the actual and proximate causes of the injuries and damages.

For instance, if a person is stopped at a red light, it's likely that they'll be struck by a car. If their car is damaged they'll be accountable for the repairs. The cause of a crash could be caused by a brick cut which develops into an infection.

Breach of Duty

The second element of negligence is the breach of duty by an individual defendant. This must be proved in order to receive compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty occurs when the actions of the party at fault aren't in line with what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for example is a professional with a range of professional obligations to his patients. These obligations stem from the law of the state and licensing bodies. Motorists have a duty of care to other drivers and pedestrians on the road to drive safely and obey traffic laws. If a motorist violates this obligation of care and results in an accident, he is accountable for the victim's injuries.

A lawyer may use the "reasonable person" standard to establish the existence of a duty of care and then demonstrate that the defendant did not meet 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 demonstrate that the breach by the defendant was the main cause of the plaintiff's injuries. This can be more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty and breach. For example the defendant could have crossed a red line, however, the act wasn't the main cause of the crash. The issue of causation is often challenged in crash cases by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle accident attorney vehicle cases, the plaintiff must establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and his or her injuries. For instance, if a plaintiff suffered an injury to the neck as a result of a rear-end collision and his or her lawyer could argue that the collision was the cause of the injury. Other factors necessary to cause the collision, like being in a stationary car are not considered to be culpable and will not impact the jury's decision on fault.

It could be more difficult to prove a causal link between a negligent act and the psychological symptoms of the plaintiff. The fact that the plaintiff had an uneasy childhood, a bad relationship with his or her parents, used alcohol and drugs, or suffered prior unemployment could have a influence on the severity of the psychological issues is suffering from following a crash, but the courts typically consider these factors as part of the context that caused the accident in which the plaintiff was triggered, not as a separate reason for the injuries.

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

Damages

In motor vehicle accident lawyer vehicle litigation, a plaintiff could be able to recover both economic and noneconomic damages. The first category of damages includes all financial costs that can be easily added together and calculated as a total, such as medical treatment or lost wages, repair to property, and even the possibility of future financial loss, for instance the loss of earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to seek non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering as well as loss of enjoyment of life which cannot be reduced to a dollar amount. However these damages must be established to exist using extensive evidence, such as deposition testimony of the plaintiff's close friends and family members, medical records, and other expert witness testimony.

In cases that involve multiple defendants, Courts will often use rules of comparative negligence to determine the percentage of damages awarded should be divided between them. This requires the jury to determine the degree of fault each defendant was at fault for the incident and then divide the total amount of damages by that percentage of the fault. New York law however, does not allow for this. 1602 does not exempt vehicle owners from the rule of comparative negligence in cases where injuries are sustained by the drivers of cars or trucks. The subsequent analysis of whether the presumption of permissive usage is applicable is a bit nebulous, and typically only a convincing evidence that the owner explicitly did not have permission to operate his car will overcome it.