Altoona Motor vehicle accident attorney Vehicle Litigation

When a claim for liability is litigated and the liability is disputed, it is necessary to start a lawsuit. The defendant then has the chance to respond to the complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that, should a jury find that you are responsible for an accident and you are found to be at fault, your damages will be reduced based on your percentage of blame. 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 case of negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed the duty of care toward them. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, but those who are behind the car are obligated to the other drivers in their zone of operation. This includes ensuring that they do not cause accidents in motor vehicles.

In courtrooms the standards of care are determined by comparing an individual's behavior against what a normal individual would do under similar circumstances. In the case of medical malpractice experts are typically required. Experts who have a superior understanding in a particular field can be held to an higher standard of care than other people in similar situations.

A breach of a person's duty of care may cause harm to the victim or their property. The victim has to show that the defendant violated their duty of care and caused the injury or damage they sustained. Causation is a crucial element of any negligence claim. It requires proving both the proximate and real causes of the injury and damages.

For instance, if a driver runs a red stop sign, it's likely that they'll be hit by another car. If their car is damaged they'll be accountable for repairs. The reason for the crash could be a cut from a brick that later develops into a dangerous infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by the defendant is the second element of negligence that needs to be proved in order to receive compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty is when the actions taken by the person at fault are not in line with what an ordinary person would do under similar circumstances.

For instance, a physician is required to perform a number of professional duties for his patients stemming from state law and licensing boards. Drivers are obliged to protect other motorists and pedestrians, and to respect traffic laws. A driver who breaches this duty and creates an accident is accountable for the injuries of the victim.

Lawyers can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of the duty of care, and then show that the defendant did not comply with the standard in his actions. The jury will decide if the defendant complied with or did not meet the standard.

The plaintiff must also prove that the defendant's negligence was the sole cause of the plaintiff's injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. For example an individual defendant could have crossed a red light, but his or her action was not the sole cause of your bike crash. In this way, causation is often challenged by defendants in crash cases.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and the injuries. If a plaintiff suffers an injury to the neck in an accident with rear-end damage the attorney for the plaintiff would argue that the collision caused the injury. Other factors that are necessary for the collision to occur, such as being in a stationary vehicle, are not culpable and will not affect the jury's decision of liability.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between negligence and the injured plaintiff's symptoms may be more difficult to establish. The reality that the plaintiff experienced a troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with his or her parents, used alcohol and drugs, or suffered previous unemployment may have some bearing on the severity of the psychological issues he or she suffers after a crash, but the courts typically look at these factors as part of the background circumstances that caused the accident in which the plaintiff was triggered, not as a separate reason for the injuries.

It is important to consult an experienced lawyer should you be involved in a serious car accident. The attorneys at Arnold & Clifford, LLP, have extensive experience in representing clients in personal injury commercial and business litigation and bluefield motor vehicle accident law firm vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have established working relationships with independent medical professionals in a wide range of specialties and expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations, and with private investigators.

Damages

The damages that a plaintiff may recover in a motor vehicle lawsuit include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages includes any monetary costs that are easily added up and calculated as an amount, like medical expenses or lost wages, property repair, and even future financial losses like a diminished earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to seek non-economic damages like pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life which cannot be reduced to a monetary amount. These damages must be established through extensive evidence like depositions from family members and friends of the plaintiff medical records, as well as other expert witness testimony.

In cases involving multiple defendants, Courts will often use the concept of comparative negligence to decide the percentage of damages awarded should be divided between them. The jury has to determine the proportion of fault each defendant has for the incident and then divide the total damages awarded by that percentage. However, New York law 1602 excludes vehicle owners from the rule of comparative negligence in the event of injuries caused by drivers of cars or trucks. The analysis to determine whether the presumption is permissive is complex. The majority of the time, only a clear demonstration that the owner was not able to grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle can overrule the presumption.