• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Motor Vehicle Litigation

If liability is contested in court, it becomes necessary to file a lawsuit. The defendant has the right to respond to the complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that should a jury find that you are responsible for an accident the damages you incur will be reduced based on your percentage of fault. This rule is not applicable to owners of vehicles that are leased or rented to minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was bound by the duty of care toward them. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, however individuals who get behind the wheel of a Motor Vehicle Accident Attorney (Http://Arikkeu.Com/G5/Bbs/Board.Php?Bo_Table=Arikkeu1234_&Wr_Id=105234) vehicle have a higher obligation to other people in their field of operation. This includes not causing accidents in motor vehicles.

Courtrooms assess an individual's actions to what a typical individual would do in similar circumstances to determine what constitutes an acceptable standard of care. In the case of medical malpractice experts are typically required. Experts who have a greater understanding of particular fields may be held to a higher standard of care.

A breach of a person's duty of care could cause harm to a victim, or their property. The victim has to prove that the defendant acted in breach of their obligation and caused the damage or damages they sustained. Causation is an important part of any negligence claim. It requires proof of both the proximate and real causes of the injury and damages.

If someone runs an stop sign it is likely that they will be struck by another vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they will be responsible for the repairs. But the actual cause of the crash could be a cut from the brick, which then develops into a potentially dangerous infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by a defendant is the second factor of negligence that must be proved to obtain compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty occurs when the at-fault party's actions do not match what reasonable people would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for example is a professional with a range of professional obligations to his patients. These professional obligations stem from the law of the state and licensing bodies. Motorists have a duty of care to other drivers and pedestrians to drive safely and observe traffic laws. If a driver fails to comply with this duty of care and causes an accident, he is responsible for the injuries suffered by the victim.

A lawyer can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of the duty of care, and then demonstrate that the defendant did not satisfy the standard through his actions. It is a question of fact that the jury has to decide if the defendant met the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also prove that the defendant's negligence was the direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries. This is sometimes more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty or breach. A defendant might have walked through a red light, but that wasn't what caused your bicycle accident. For this reason, causation is often contested by the defendants in cases of crash.

Causation

In motor vehicle accidents, the plaintiff must prove a causal link between defendant's breach and their injuries. For instance, if the plaintiff suffered a neck injury from an accident that involved rear-ends and his or her lawyer could argue that the accident caused the injury. Other elements that could have caused the collision, like being in a stationary car is not culpable and will not influence the jury's decision on the cause of the accident.

For psychological injuries However, the connection between an act of negligence and an injured plaintiff's symptoms could be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff had troubles in his or her childhood, had a difficult relationship with his or her parents, was a user of alcohol and drugs or had previous unemployment may have some influence on the severity the psychological issues is suffering from following an accident, but courts typically look at these factors as part of the context from which the plaintiff's accident occurred, rather than as an independent cause of the injuries.

If you've been involved in an accident involving a motor vehicle that was serious it is crucial to speak with a seasoned attorney. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience in representing clients in motor vehicle accidents cases, business and commercial litigation, as well as personal injury cases. Our lawyers have formed working relationships with independent doctors in various specialties, as well expert witnesses in computer simulations and reconstruction of accident.

Damages

In motor vehicle litigation, a plaintiff may get both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages covers any monetary costs that are easily added to calculate an amount, like medical expenses or lost wages, property repairs, and even future financial losses, like a diminished earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to recover non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering as well as loss of enjoyment of life which cannot be reduced to a monetary amount. However these damages must be proved to exist with the help of extensive evidence, such as deposition testimony of the plaintiff's family members and close friends medical records, other expert witness testimony.

In the event of multiple defendants, courts typically apply the rules of comparative fault to determine the amount of total damages that must be divided between them. The jury has to determine the amount of fault each defendant is accountable for the incident and then divide the total amount of damages awarded by the percentage. New York law however, doesn't allow this. 1602 specifically exempts owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule when it comes to injuries sustained by the driver of these vehicles and trucks. The subsequent analysis of whether the presumption of permissiveness applies is complex and usually only a convincing evidence that the owner has explicitly was not granted permission to operate the vehicle will be able to overcome it.