Write About Everything

Motor Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is required when liability is contested. The Defendant will then have the chance to respond to the complaint.

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

Duty of Care

In a negligence suit the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was obligated to act with reasonable care. Most people owe this duty to everyone else, however those who are behind the car are obligated to the people in their area of operation. This includes ensuring that there are no accidents in kingsburg motor vehicle accident attorney vehicles.

In courtrooms, the quality of care is determined by comparing an individual’s actions against what a normal individual would do in similar circumstances. In cases of medical malpractice experts are typically required. People who have superior knowledge in a particular field can also be held to an even higher standard of care than other people in similar situations.

A person’s breach of their duty of care may cause injury 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 they sustained. Causation is a key element of any negligence claim. It requires proof of both the actual and proximate causes of the damages and injuries.

For instance, if a person is stopped at a red light then it’s likely that they’ll be struck by another car. If their car is damaged, they’ll have to pay for the repairs. But the reason for the crash might be a cut in bricks, which later turn into a deadly infection.

Breach of Duty

The second element of negligence is the breach of duty committed by a defendant. It must be proven in order to be awarded compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty happens when the actions of the person at fault fall short of what reasonable people would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for instance, has several professional obligations to his patients, arising from laws of the state and licensing boards. Drivers are required to care for other drivers and pedestrians, and adhere to traffic laws. A driver who breaches this obligation and causes an accident is accountable for the injuries sustained by the victim.

Lawyers can rely on the “reasonable person” standard to prove the existence of the duty of care, and then demonstrate that the defendant did not meet that standard in 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 proximate cause of his or her injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. For instance it is possible that a defendant crossed a red line, but the action was not the primary cause of the crash. Because of this, causation is frequently disputed by defendants in collision cases.

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 a neck injury in a rear-end collision, his or her attorney would argue that the accident was the reason for the injury. Other factors that are essential to produce the collision, like being in a stationary vehicle are not culpable, and do not affect the jury’s determination of the liability.

It could be more difficult to establish a causal link between a negligent act, and the plaintiff’s psychological problems. The fact that the plaintiff has a troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with their parents, abused drugs and alcohol or experienced previous unemployment may have some impact on the severity of the psychological problems he or suffers following an accident, but courts typically view these elements as an element of the background conditions from which the plaintiff’s accident was triggered, not as a separate cause of the injuries.

If you have been in a serious west salem motor vehicle accident law firm vehicle accident, it is important to consult with an experienced attorney. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP have years of experience representing clients in personal injury cases, business and commercial litigation, and motor vehicle crash cases. Our lawyers have built working relationships with independent doctors in a variety of specialties, as well as expert witnesses in computer simulations and reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

The damages a plaintiff may recover in motor vehicle litigation can include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages comprises any financial costs that are easily added to calculate an amount, like medical expenses and lost wages, property repair, and even future financial losses, like a diminished earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages like suffering and pain, and loss of enjoyment of life can’t be reduced to cash. However the damages must be proven to exist with the help of extensive evidence, such as deposition testimony from the plaintiff’s family members and close friends, medical records, and other expert witness testimony.

In cases that involve multiple defendants, Courts will often use rules of comparative negligence to determine how much of the damages awarded should be divided between them. The jury has to determine the amount of fault each defendant carries for the incident, and divide the total damages awarded by that percentage. However, New York law 1602 does not exempt vehicle owners from the rule of comparative negligence in cases where injuries are caused by drivers of trucks or cars. The method of determining if the presumption of permissiveness is complicated. Most of the time the only way to prove that the owner was not able to grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle can be able to overcome the presumption.