Motor Vehicle Litigation
If the liability is challenged then it is necessary to bring a lawsuit. The Defendant has the right to respond to the Complaint.
New York follows pure comparative fault rules, which means that when a jury finds you responsible for the accident the amount of damages awarded will be reduced by your percentage of negligence. There is a slight exception to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes the owners of vehicles that are rented or leased by minors.
Duty of Care
In a case of negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was bound by the duty of care toward them. Nearly everyone owes this obligation to everyone else, however those who take the wheel of a
motor vehicle accident lawsuits vehicle are obligated to other people in their field of operation. This includes not causing motor vehicle Accidents (
Beck-stephens-2.blogbright.net).
Courtrooms assess an individual's actions to what a typical individual would do in the same circumstances to determine what constitutes an acceptable standard of care. Expert witnesses are frequently required in cases involving medical negligence. Experts who have a greater understanding of the field could be held to a greater standard of medical care.
When a person breaches their duty of care, it can cause damage to the victim as well as their property. The victim has to establish that the defendant's breach of their duty resulted in the damage and injury they have suffered. Proving causation is a critical element in any negligence case and involves considering both the actual basis of the injury or damages as well as the reason for the injury or damage.
If a driver is caught running a stop sign, they are likely to be struck by a vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll be accountable for repairs. The real cause of the crash could be a brick cut that causes an infection.
Breach of Duty
The second aspect of negligence is the breach of duty by a defendant. The breach of duty must be proved for compensation for a personal injury claim. A breach of duty is when the actions of the person at fault are not in line with what an ordinary person would do under similar circumstances.
A doctor, for example has a variety of professional duties towards his patients. These professional obligations stem from the law of the state and licensing bodies. Drivers are obliged to care for other drivers and pedestrians, and obey traffic laws. If a driver fails to comply with this duty of care and creates an accident, he is accountable for the injuries sustained by the victim.
A lawyer can use "reasonable persons" standard to demonstrate that there is a duty of caution and then prove that the defendant failed to meet this standard in his actions. It is a matter of fact for the jury to decide whether the defendant was in compliance with the standard or not.
The plaintiff must also establish that the defendant's breach of duty was the proximate cause of his or her injuries. It is more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. For example an individual defendant could have been a motorist who ran a red light, but it's likely that his or her actions was not the primary cause of the crash. For this reason, causation is frequently disputed 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 his or her injuries. For instance, if the plaintiff sustained an injury to his neck in a rear-end collision, his or her lawyer could argue that the accident caused the injury. Other factors that are necessary to cause the collision, like being in a stationary car, are not culpable and will not affect the jury's determination of liability.
It is possible to establish a causal connection between a negligent act, and the plaintiff's psychological symptoms. The fact that the plaintiff suffered from a an uneasy childhood, a bad relationship with their parents, was a user of alcohol and drugs or had previous unemployment may have some influence on the severity the psychological issues suffers following an accident, but courts typically look at these factors as part of the circumstances that led to the accident from which the plaintiff's injury resulted rather than an independent cause of the injuries.
It is essential to speak with an experienced attorney when you've been involved in a serious motor accident. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience representing clients in
motor vehicle accident lawsuits vehicle accidents cases, business and commercial litigation, and personal injury cases. Our lawyers have developed working relationships with independent physicians with a variety of specialties as well as expert witnesses in accidents reconstruction and computer simulations as well as with private investigators.
Damages
The damages plaintiffs can seek in a motor vehicle case include both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages encompasses the costs of monetary value that can easily be added up and calculated into the total amount, which includes medical expenses and lost wages, repairs to property, or even a future financial loss, for instance diminished earning capacity.
New York law also recognizes the right to seek non-economic damages, including suffering and pain, as well as loss of enjoyment of life which cannot be reduced to a monetary amount. These damages must be established with a large amount of evidence, such as depositions from family members and friends of the plaintiff or medical records, or other expert witness testimony.
In cases where there are multiple defendants, courts will typically use the comparative fault rule to determine the amount of damages that must be divided between them. This requires the jury to determine how much responsibility each defendant was at fault for the accident, and then divide the total damages award by the percentage of blame. However, New York law 1602 disqualifies vehicle owners from the comparative negligence rule in the event of injuries sustained by drivers of cars or trucks. The resulting analysis of whether the presumption of permissive usage applies is not straightforward and usually only a convincing evidence that the owner specifically was not granted permission to operate the vehicle will be able to overcome it.