montoursville motor vehicle accident lawyer Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is required when liability is contested. The defendant is entitled to respond to the complaint.

New York follows pure comparative fault rules and, should a jury find that you are responsible for causing the accident, your damages award will be reduced by your percentage of negligence. There is an exception to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes owners of vehicles that are rented or leased to minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence case the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was obligated to exercise reasonable care. This duty is due to all people, however those who drive a vehicle owe an even greater duty to others in their field. This includes ensuring that they don't cause car accidents.

In courtrooms the standard of care is determined by comparing an individual's behavior against what a normal individual would do in similar circumstances. In cases of medical malpractice experts are often required. Experts who have a greater understanding of specific fields could be held to a greater standard of medical care.

A breach of a person's duty of care could cause harm to a victim or their property. The victim is then required to prove that the defendant breached their duty and caused the injury or damages they sustained. Causation is a key element of any negligence claim. It involves proving the actual and proximate causes of the damage and injury.

For instance, if a driver is stopped at a red light and is stopped, they will be hit by a vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll be responsible for repairs. But the actual cause of the crash could be a cut in the brick, which then develops into a dangerous infection.

Breach of Duty

The second aspect of negligence is the breach of duty by a defendant. The breach of duty must be proved in order to obtain compensation for a personal injury claim. A breach of duty occurs when the actions of the person at fault do not match what an ordinary person would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor has many professional obligations to his patients that are derived from laws of the state and licensing bodies. Drivers are required to protect other motorists and pedestrians, as well as to obey traffic laws. If a driver violates this obligation of care and results in an accident, the driver is responsible for the injuries sustained by the victim.

A lawyer can rely on the "reasonable persons" standard to demonstrate that there is a duty of care and then show that the defendant failed to meet this standard in his conduct. It is a matter of fact that the jury has 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 primary cause for the injuries. It is more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. For example it is possible that a defendant crossed a red light, but it's likely that his or her actions wasn't the main cause of the crash. The issue of causation is often challenged in cases of crash by defendants.

Causation

In allentown Motor vehicle accident Lawsuit vehicle cases the plaintiff must establish that there is a causal connection between the defendant's breach and their injuries. If a plaintiff suffered neck injuries in an accident that involved rear-end collisions, his or her attorney will argue that the incident was the cause of the injury. Other factors that are needed 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 connection between an act of negligence and an injured plaintiff's symptoms may be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff suffered from a an unhappy childhood, a poor relationship with his or her parents, used alcohol and drugs or previous unemployment may have some impact on the severity of the psychological issues she suffers after an accident, but courts typically view these elements as an element of the background conditions that caused the accident in which the plaintiff occurred, rather than as an independent cause of the injuries.

If you have been in a serious motor vehicle accident, it is important to consult with an experienced attorney. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP, have extensive experience in representing clients in personal injury, commercial and business litigation, and sikeston motor vehicle accident attorney vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have formed working relationships with independent physicians in a variety of specialties, as well experts in computer simulations and reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

In motor vehicle litigation, a plaintiff may be able to recover both economic and noneconomic damages. The first category of damages encompasses all monetary costs which can easily be added up and summed up into an overall amount, including medical treatment or lost wages, repair to property, and even future financial loss, for instance a diminished 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, which cannot be reduced to a dollar amount. The damages must be proven through extensive evidence such as depositions of family members and friends of the plaintiff medical records, as well as 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 awarded should be divided between them. This requires the jury to determine how much responsibility each defendant incurred in the accident, and then divide the total amount of damages by the percentage of the fault. New York law however, does not permit this. 1602 specifically excludes owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule when it comes to injuries suffered by driver of these trucks and cars. The method of determining if the presumption is permissive or not is complex. Most of the time it is only a clear evidence that the owner did not grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle can be sufficient to overturn the presumption.