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

Motor Vehicle Litigation

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

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that when a jury finds that you are responsible for an accident and you are found to be at fault, your damages will be reduced based on your percentage of blame. There is an exception 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. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, but those who take the driving wheel of a motorized vehicle are obligated to others in their area of activity. This includes ensuring that they do not cause accidents in motor vehicles.

Courtrooms compare an individual's actions to what a typical person would do under similar circumstances to determine an acceptable standard of care. In the event of medical malpractice experts are often required. Experts who have a superior understanding in a specific field could be held to an even higher standard of care than other people in similar situations.

A breach of a person's duty of care can cause injury to a victim or their property. The victim must prove that the defendant breached their duty of care and caused the injury or damage they sustained. Proving causation is a critical element in any negligence case and requires considering both the actual basis of the injury or damages as well as the cause of the damage or injury.

For instance, if someone is stopped at a red light, it's likely that they'll be struck by another car. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll be accountable for repairs. But the reason for the crash could be a cut from bricks, which later turn into a serious infection.

Breach of Duty

A defendant's breach of duty is the second aspect of negligence that has to be proved in order to receive compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty happens when the at-fault party's actions fall short of what reasonable people would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for instance, has a number of professional duties towards his patients. These obligations stem from laws of the state and licensing bodies. Motorists owe a duty care to other motorists and pedestrians on the road to drive safely and observe traffic laws. Drivers who violate this duty and causes an accident is responsible for the victim's injuries.

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 satisfy the standard through his actions. It is a question of fact that the jury has to decide whether the defendant met the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also prove that the breach by the defendant was the direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries. It can be more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. For example the defendant could have crossed a red line, but the action wasn't the main cause of the crash. This is why causation is often challenged by defendants in crash cases.

Causation

In motor vehicle-related cases, the plaintiff must establish that there is a causal connection between the defendant's breach and their injuries. If a plaintiff suffers neck injuries in a rear-end accident the attorney for the plaintiff will argue that the crash caused the injury. Other factors that are necessary in causing the collision such as being in a stationary car, 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 action and the plaintiff's psychological problems. The reality that the plaintiff experienced a a troubled childhood, poor relationship with their parents, was a user of alcohol and drugs or had prior unemployment could have a influence on the severity the psychological issues she suffers after an accident, however, the courts generally view these factors as part of the background circumstances from which the plaintiff's accident resulted rather than an independent reason for the injuries.

If you've been involved in a serious motor vehicle crash It is imperative to speak with a seasoned attorney. The attorneys at Arnold & Clifford, LLP, have extensive experience in representing clients in personal injury, commercial and business litigation, and motor vehicle accident lawsuits vehicle crash cases. Our lawyers have built working relationships with independent physicians in different specialties, as well as experts in computer simulations and accident reconstruction.

Damages

The damages plaintiffs can seek in a motor Vehicle accident law firm vehicle case include both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages is all monetary costs which can easily be summed up and then calculated into a total, such as medical treatments as well as lost wages, repairs to property, and even financial loss, for instance a diminished earning capacity.

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

In cases where there are multiple defendants, Courts will often use comparative negligence rules to determine how much of the total damages awarded should be divided between them. The jury must determine the percentage of fault each defendant carries for the accident, and divide the total amount of damages awarded by the same percentage. New York law however, does not allow this. 1602 excludes vehicle owners from the comparative negligence rule in the event of injuries caused by drivers of trucks or cars. The subsequent analysis of whether the presumption of permissive usage applies is not straightforward and typically only a clear evidence that the owner explicitly denied permission to operate the vehicle will be able to overcome it.