Cheri Steinberg asked 7 months ago
Motor Vehicle Litigation
If liability is contested and the liability is disputed, it is necessary to make a complaint. The defendant has the option to respond to the complaint.
New York follows pure comparative fault rules, which means that in the event that a jury finds that you are responsible for causing a crash the damages awarded to you will be reduced by your percentage of negligence. This rule is not applicable to owners of vehicles rented out or leased to minors.
Duty of Care
In a case of negligence the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant owed the duty of care towards them. The majority of people owe this obligation to everyone else, however those who are behind the driving wheel of a motorized vehicle are obligated to other people in their field of activity. This includes ensuring that they don’t cause motor vehicle accident Law Firms vehicle accidents.
In courtrooms, the standards of care are determined by comparing an individual’s conduct to what a normal person would do in similar situations. Expert witnesses are frequently required in cases involving medical negligence. People with superior knowledge in a certain field may be held to a greater standard of treatment.
If someone violates their duty of care, it can cause damage to the victim as well as their property. The victim must then prove that the defendant’s breach of their duty caused the damage and injury they have suffered. Causation is an essential element of any negligence claim. It involves proving the actual and proximate causes of the injury and damages.
If someone runs a stop sign it is likely that they will be hit by a car. If their vehicle is damaged, they will be responsible for the repairs. But the actual cause of the crash might be a cut from bricks, which later turn into a dangerous infection.
Breach of Duty
The second element of negligence is the breach of duty by a defendant. This must be proved in order to obtain compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty occurs when the actions of the person who is at fault are not in line with what an ordinary person would do under similar circumstances.
For instance, a doctor, has a number of professional obligations to his patients. These professional obligations stem from state law and licensing bodies. Drivers are required to be considerate of other drivers as well as pedestrians, and to respect traffic laws. Drivers who violate this duty and causes an accident is responsible for the injuries suffered by the victim.
A lawyer can rely on the “reasonable person” standard to establish the existence of the duty of care, and then show that the defendant failed to meet the standard in his actions. It is a question of fact that the jury has to decide if the defendant was in compliance with the standard or not.
The plaintiff must also prove that the breach of duty by the defendant was the primary cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. This can be more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. A defendant could have run through a red light, however, that’s not the reason for your bicycle accident. For this reason, the causation issue is often contested by the defendants in cases of crash.
Causation
In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff must establish a causal connection between the defendant’s breach of duty and his or her injuries. If the plaintiff sustained a neck injury in a rear-end collision the attorney for the plaintiff will argue that the incident was the reason for the injury. Other factors that are necessary for the collision to occur, like being in a stationary car, are not considered to be culpable and therefore do not affect the jury’s decision of the liability.
For psychological injuries However, the connection between negligence and the injured plaintiff’s symptoms may be more difficult to establish. The reality that the plaintiff experienced a an unhappy childhood, a poor relationship with his or her parents, used alcohol and drugs, or suffered prior unemployment could have a influence on the severity the psychological issues he or is suffering from following a crash, but the courts typically view these elements as part of the context that caused the accident in which the plaintiff was triggered, not as a separate cause of the injuries.
If you’ve been involved in an accident that is serious to your vehicle, it is important to consult an experienced attorney. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience representing clients in motor vehicle accident as well as business and commercial litigation, and personal injury cases. Our lawyers have built working relationships with independent physicians in a variety of specialties, as well expert witnesses in computer simulations and reconstruction of accidents.
Damages
The damages plaintiffs can claim in motor vehicle accident attorneys vehicle litigation include both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages includes any monetary expenses that can be easily added to calculate a sum, such as medical treatment loss of wages, Motor Vehicle Accident Law Firms property repair, and even future financial losses, such as 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 of life which cannot be reduced to a dollar amount. However, these damages must be proven to exist with the help of extensive evidence, motor vehicle accident law Firms including deposition testimony from plaintiff’s close family members and friends medical records, as well as other expert witness testimony.
In the event of multiple defendants, courts will typically use the comparative fault rule to determine the amount of damages that must be divided between them. The jury will determine the percentage of blame each defendant carries for the incident and then divide the total damages awarded by that percentage. New York law however, does not permit this. 1602 exempts owners of vehicles from the comparative negligence rule in the event of injuries caused by drivers of trucks or cars. The analysis to determine whether the presumption is permissive or not is complicated. The majority of the time the only way to prove that the owner denied permission for the driver to operate the vehicle can overrule the presumption.