Motor Vehicle Litigation

When a claim for liability is litigated and the liability is disputed, it is necessary to file a lawsuit. The defendant will then have the opportunity to respond to the complaint.

New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that, in the event that a jury determines that you are responsible for an accident the damages you incur will be reduced according to your percentage of fault. This rule is not applicable to the owners of vehicles that are that are rented or leased out to minors.

Duty of Care

In a case of negligence the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had the duty of care towards them. Nearly everyone owes this obligation to everyone else, however those who sit behind the wheel of a motor vehicle have a higher obligation to other people in their field of operation. This includes ensuring that they don't cause accidents with geneva motor vehicle accident law firm vehicles.

In courtrooms, the quality of care is determined by comparing an individual's behavior against what a normal individual would do in similar situations. Expert witnesses are frequently required when cases involve medical malpractice. People who have superior knowledge in a specific field could be held to an higher standard of care than others in similar situations.

A breach of a person's obligation of care can cause harm to a victim, or their property. The victim has 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 proof of both the proximate and real causes of the damages and injuries.

If a driver is caught running a stop sign and fails to obey the stop sign, they could be struck by a vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll be responsible for repairs. However, the real cause of the crash could be a cut on bricks that later develop into a deadly infection.

Breach of Duty

A breach of duty by a defendant is the second factor of negligence that must be proved in order to receive compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty is when the actions of the at-fault party are not in line with what an ordinary person would do in similar circumstances.

A doctor, for instance, is required to perform a number of professional duties for his patients based on the law of the state and licensing boards. Motorists owe a duty of care to other drivers and pedestrians on the road to be safe and follow traffic laws. When a driver breaches this duty of care and results in an accident, the driver is responsible for the victim's injuries.

A lawyer can use "reasonable people" standard to prove that there is a duty of caution and then show that the defendant did not meet this standard in his actions. The jury will decide if the defendant met or did not meet the standard.

The plaintiff must also establish that the breach of duty by the defendant was the primary cause of the injuries. It is more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. A defendant may have run through a red light, but that wasn't what caused the crash on your bicycle. For this reason, the causation issue is often contested by the defendants in cases of crash.

Causation

In vernon hills motor vehicle accident Law firm vehicle accidents, the plaintiff must prove that there is a causal connection between the breach of the defendant and the injuries. If the plaintiff sustained an injury to the neck in a rear-end accident and his or her attorney will argue that the incident was the reason for the injury. Other factors that contributed to the collision, like being in a stationary car are not culpable and will not influence the jury's decision to determine the degree of fault.

For psychological injuries However, the connection between negligence and the affected plaintiff's symptoms can be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff has a an unhappy childhood, a poor relationship with their parents, was a user of alcohol and drugs or prior unemployment could have a influence on the severity the psychological issues he or is suffering from following a crash, but the courts typically look at these factors as an element of the background conditions that caused the accident occurred, rather than as an independent cause of the injuries.

It is imperative to consult an experienced lawyer should you be involved in a serious motor accident. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have years of experience representing clients in motor vehicle accident commercial and business litigation, and personal injury cases. Our lawyers have developed relationships with independent physicians with a variety of specialties including expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations, as well as with private investigators.

Damages

The damages plaintiffs can claim in a motor vehicle lawsuit include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages encompasses all costs that can be easily added together and summed up into a total, for example, medical expenses as well as lost wages, repairs to property, and even financial loss, like a diminished earning capacity.

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

In the event of multiple defendants, courts often use comparative fault rules to determine the amount of total damages that should be divided between them. The jury will determine the proportion of fault each defendant has for the incident, and divide the total amount of damages awarded by the percentage. New York law however, does not allow this. 1602 specifically exempts owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule in relation to injuries sustained by the driver of the vehicles. The resulting analysis of whether the presumption of permissiveness is applicable is a bit nebulous, and typically only a clear showing that the owner explicitly denied permission to operate the car will be sufficient to overcome it.