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

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 follows pure comparative fault rules, which means that when a jury finds you to be the cause of a crash the damages awarded will be reduced by your percentage of negligence. There is a caveat to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes owners of vehicles hired or leased by minors.

Duty of Care

In a negligence lawsuit the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was obligated to act with reasonable care. Nearly everyone owes this obligation to everyone else, however those who take the driving wheel of a motorized vehicle have a greater obligation to the other drivers in their zone of activity. This includes not causing motor vehicle accidents.

In courtrooms, the standards of care are determined by comparing an individual's actions against what a normal individual would do in the same circumstances. In cases of medical malpractice experts are typically required. People who have superior knowledge of a specific area may also be held to a higher standard of care than other people in similar situations.

A person's breach of their duty of care could cause harm to a victim or their property. The victim is then required to demonstrate that the defendant's violation of duty caused the damage and injury they sustained. Causation is an essential element of any negligence claim. It requires proving both the primary and secondary causes of the damages and injuries.

If a person is stopped at a stop sign it is likely that they will be struck by a vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll be required to pay for repairs. But the actual cause of the crash could be a cut in the brick, which then develops into a serious infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by a defendant is the second aspect of negligence that has to be proved to obtain compensation in a personal injury lawsuit. A breach of duty occurs when the actions of the at-fault person are insufficient to what a normal person would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a doctor has several professional obligations to his patients based on laws of the state and licensing boards. Motorists have a duty of care to other drivers and pedestrians to be safe and follow traffic laws. If a driver violates this duty of care and results in an accident, the driver is liable for the injury suffered by the victim.

A lawyer can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to prove 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 for the jury to decide if the defendant complied with the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defendant's negligence was the sole 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 driven through a red light but that wasn't what caused the bicycle accident. The issue of causation is often challenged in cases of crash by defendants.

Causation

In motor vehicle accident law firm vehicle accidents, the plaintiff must establish a causal link between the defendant's breach and their injuries. For instance, if the plaintiff sustained an injury to the neck as a result of an accident that involved rear-ends the lawyer would argue that the collision caused the injury. Other factors that are necessary for the collision to occur, such as being in a stationary vehicle, are not considered to be culpable and therefore do not affect the jury's determination of liability.

It may be harder to establish a causal relationship between a negligent act and the plaintiff's psychological problems. The reality that the plaintiff experienced a a troubled childhood, poor relationship with his or her parents, abused alcohol and drugs, or suffered previous unemployment may have some impact on the severity of the psychological issues is suffering from following an accident, however, the courts typically consider these factors as part of the circumstances that caused the accident in which the plaintiff resulted rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

If you have been in a serious motor vehicle accident lawyer vehicle crash It is imperative to consult an experienced attorney. The attorneys at Arnold & Clifford, LLP have years of experience representing clients in personal injury as well as commercial and business litigation, and motor vehicle accident attorneys vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have established working relationships with independent physicians in various specialties, as well as expert witnesses in computer simulations as well as reconstruction of accidents.

Damages

The damages that a plaintiff may recover in a motor vehicle case include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages includes all financial costs that can be easily added together and then calculated into a total, such as medical expenses as well as lost wages, repairs to property, and even the possibility of future financial loss, such the loss of earning capacity.

New York law recognizes that non-economic damages like suffering and pain, as well as loss of enjoyment of living are not able to be reduced to money. The proof of these damages is through extensive evidence like depositions from family members and friends of the plaintiff medical records, as well as 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 to be split between them. The jury must determine the amount of fault each defendant incurred in the accident, and then divide the total damages awarded by that percentage of the fault. New York law however, does not allow for this. 1602 exempts owners of vehicles from the rule of comparative negligence in the event of injuries sustained by the drivers of trucks or cars. The subsequent analysis of whether the presumption of permissive use is applicable is a bit nebulous and usually only a clear proof that the owner was explicitly did not have permission to operate his vehicle will be able to overcome it.