Motor Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is required in cases where liability is challenged. The defendant has the option to respond to the Complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that, if a jury finds you to be responsible for an accident, your damages will be reduced based on your percentage of fault. There is a caveat to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes owners of vehicles hired or leased by minors.

Duty of Care

In a case of negligence the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had the duty of care toward them. Most people owe this duty to everyone else, however those who are behind the wheel of a indian trail motor vehicle accident attorney vehicle have a greater obligation to others in their area of operation. This includes not causing accidents in motor vehicles.

Courtrooms compare an individual's actions to what a typical person would do under the same circumstances to establish what is a reasonable standard of care. This is why expert witnesses are often required when cases involve medical malpractice. Experts who have a superior understanding in a particular field can be held to an even higher standard of care than other people in similar situations.

A breach of a person's duty of care can cause harm to a victim, or their property. The victim must then prove that the defendant's breach of their duty led to the injury and damages that they suffered. Causation proof is a crucial aspect of any negligence claim which involves looking at both the actual reason for the injury or damages, as well as the causal cause of the injury or damage.

If a person is stopped at a stop sign then they are more likely to be hit by another vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll be accountable for the repairs. The reason for the crash might be a cut from the brick, which then develops into a deadly infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by a defendant is the second element of negligence that must be proved in order to secure compensation in a personal injury lawsuit. A breach of duty occurs when the at-fault party's actions fall short of what an average person would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor has many professional obligations to his patients. These obligations stem from the law of the state and licensing bodies. Motorists are required to show care to other drivers and pedestrians on the road to drive in a safe manner and adhere to traffic laws. Any driver who fails to adhere to this obligation and causes an accident is responsible for the injuries suffered by the victim.

A lawyer can use the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of the duty of care, and then show that the defendant did not satisfy the standard through his actions. The jury will decide if the defendant fulfilled or did not meet the standard.

The plaintiff must also establish that the breach of duty of the defendant was the main cause of the injuries. It can be more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. For capitola motor Vehicle accident Law firm example an individual defendant could have run a red light however, the act wasn't the main reason for your bicycle crash. This is why causation is frequently disputed by the defendants in case of a crash.

Causation

In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff must establish a causal link between the defendant's breach of duty and his or her injuries. If the plaintiff sustained neck injuries as a result of an accident that involved rear-end collisions and his or her attorney would argue that the collision was the cause of the injury. Other factors that are needed in causing the collision like being in a stationary vehicle, are not culpable, and do not affect the jury's decision of liability.

It could be more difficult to establish a causal relationship between a negligent action and the psychological symptoms of the plaintiff. The fact that the plaintiff had an unhappy childhood, a poor relationship with his or her parents, abused drugs and alcohol or experienced prior unemployment could have a bearing on the severity of the psychological issues suffers from following a crash, but the courts typically consider these factors as an element of the background conditions that caused the accident in which the plaintiff arose rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

It is imperative to consult an experienced lawyer should you be involved in a serious motor accident. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP, have extensive experience in representing clients in personal injury, commercial and business litigation, and north Port motor vehicle accident law firm vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have formed working relationships with independent doctors in different specialties as well as expert witnesses in computer simulations and reconstruction of accident.

Damages

In jacksonville motor vehicle accident law firm vehicle litigation, a plaintiff can get both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages comprises any financial costs that are easily added up and calculated as a sum, such as medical expenses, lost wages, property repair and even future financial losses, such as diminished earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages like suffering and pain, as well as loss of enjoyment cannot be reduced to money. However, these damages must be proved to exist with the help of extensive evidence, including deposition testimony of the plaintiff's close family members and friends medical records, other expert witness testimony.

In the event of multiple defendants, courts will often use comparative fault rules to determine the amount of total damages that must be divided between them. The jury has to determine the percentage of blame each defendant has for the incident, and divide the total damages awarded by the percentage. New York law however, doesn't allow this. 1602 specifically excludes owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule when it comes to injuries sustained by the driver of these trucks and cars. The analysis to determine whether the presumption is permissive or not is complicated. Most of the time, only a clear demonstration that the owner was not able to grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle can be able to overcome the presumption.