Motor Vehicle Litigation
A lawsuit is required when the liability is being contested. 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 you to be responsible for an accident and you are found to be at fault, your damages will be reduced according to your percentage of fault. There is a caveat to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes owners of vehicles which are rented or leased by minors.
Duty of Care
In a negligence case the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant owed them a duty to act with reasonable care. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, however those who are behind the driving wheel of a motorized vehicle are obligated to the people in their area of operation. This includes ensuring that they don't cause motor vehicle accidents.
Courtrooms compare an individual's actions to what a typical individual would do under the same conditions to determine a reasonable standard of care. In the event of medical negligence expert witnesses are typically required. Experts with more experience in the field could be held to a greater standard of medical care.
If someone violates their duty of care, they could cause damage to the victim as well as their property. The victim has to establish that the defendant's breach of their duty led to the damage and injury they suffered. Causation is a crucial element of any negligence claim. It requires proving both the proximate and actual causes of the injury and damages.
If a driver is caught running an intersection then they are more likely to be struck by another vehicle. If their car is damaged they will be responsible for the repairs. But the reason for the accident could be a cut or bricks that later develop into a serious infection.
Breach of Duty
A breach of duty by a defendant is the second factor of negligence that must be proven to win compensation in a personal injury claim. A breach of duty is when the actions of the person who is at fault do not match what an ordinary person would do in similar circumstances.
For instance, a physician has several professional obligations to his patients stemming from laws of the state and licensing boards. Drivers are bound to protect other motorists and pedestrians, and to obey traffic laws. If a driver violates this obligation of care and causes an accident, he is liable for the victim's injuries.
A lawyer can rely on the "reasonable individuals" standard to demonstrate that there is a duty of prudence and then show that defendant failed to meet this standard with his actions. The jury will determine if the defendant met or did not meet the standards.
The plaintiff must also prove that the breach of duty by the defendant was the primary cause of the plaintiff's injuries. It is more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. For example it is possible that a defendant crossed a red line, however, the act was not the primary cause of your bicycle crash. The issue of causation is often challenged in case of a crash by the defendants.
Causation
In motor vehicle accident attorney vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and their injuries. For instance, if a plaintiff suffered an injury to the neck as a result of a rear-end collision and their lawyer could claim that the collision caused the injury. Other elements that could have caused the collision, such as being in a stationary vehicle are not considered to be culpable and will not affect the jury's decision to determine the fault.
For psychological injuries However, the connection between negligence and the injured plaintiff's symptoms may be more difficult to establish. It may be because the plaintiff has a troubled past, has a difficult relationship with their parents, or has been a user of alcohol or drugs.
If you've been involved in an accident that is serious to your vehicle, it is important to consult an experienced attorney. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP have years of experience representing clients in personal injury commercial and business litigation, and motor vehicle crash cases. Our lawyers have developed working relationships with independent doctors across a variety of specialties, expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations as well with private investigators.
Damages
The damages that a plaintiff may recover in motor vehicle litigation can include both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages includes any monetary expenses that can be easily added up and calculated as the sum of medical treatment, lost wages, property repair and even future financial losses, like a decrease in earning capacity.
New York law also recognizes the right to recover non-economic damages like suffering and pain, as well as loss of enjoyment, which cannot be reduced to a monetary amount. The damages must be proven through extensive evidence like depositions from family members and friends of the plaintiff, medical records, or other expert witness testimony.
In cases where there are multiple defendants, courts will often use comparative fault rules to determine the amount of damages to be divided between them. This requires the jury to determine the degree of fault each defendant was responsible for the accident and then divide the total amount of damages by that percentage of blame. New York law however, doesn't allow this. 1602 exempts owners of vehicles from the rule of comparative negligence in the event of injuries caused by drivers of cars or trucks. The analysis to determine whether the presumption of permissiveness is complicated. Most of the time the only way to prove that the owner did not grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle will be sufficient to overturn the presumption.
A lawsuit is required when the liability is being contested. 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 you to be responsible for an accident and you are found to be at fault, your damages will be reduced according to your percentage of fault. There is a caveat to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes owners of vehicles which are rented or leased by minors.
Duty of Care
In a negligence case the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant owed them a duty to act with reasonable care. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, however those who are behind the driving wheel of a motorized vehicle are obligated to the people in their area of operation. This includes ensuring that they don't cause motor vehicle accidents.
Courtrooms compare an individual's actions to what a typical individual would do under the same conditions to determine a reasonable standard of care. In the event of medical negligence expert witnesses are typically required. Experts with more experience in the field could be held to a greater standard of medical care.
If someone violates their duty of care, they could cause damage to the victim as well as their property. The victim has to establish that the defendant's breach of their duty led to the damage and injury they suffered. Causation is a crucial element of any negligence claim. It requires proving both the proximate and actual causes of the injury and damages.
If a driver is caught running an intersection then they are more likely to be struck by another vehicle. If their car is damaged they will be responsible for the repairs. But the reason for the accident could be a cut or bricks that later develop into a serious infection.
Breach of Duty
A breach of duty by a defendant is the second factor of negligence that must be proven to win compensation in a personal injury claim. A breach of duty is when the actions of the person who is at fault do not match what an ordinary person would do in similar circumstances.
For instance, a physician has several professional obligations to his patients stemming from laws of the state and licensing boards. Drivers are bound to protect other motorists and pedestrians, and to obey traffic laws. If a driver violates this obligation of care and causes an accident, he is liable for the victim's injuries.
A lawyer can rely on the "reasonable individuals" standard to demonstrate that there is a duty of prudence and then show that defendant failed to meet this standard with his actions. The jury will determine if the defendant met or did not meet the standards.
The plaintiff must also prove that the breach of duty by the defendant was the primary cause of the plaintiff's injuries. It is more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. For example it is possible that a defendant crossed a red line, however, the act was not the primary cause of your bicycle crash. The issue of causation is often challenged in case of a crash by the defendants.
Causation
In motor vehicle accident attorney vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and their injuries. For instance, if a plaintiff suffered an injury to the neck as a result of a rear-end collision and their lawyer could claim that the collision caused the injury. Other elements that could have caused the collision, such as being in a stationary vehicle are not considered to be culpable and will not affect the jury's decision to determine the fault.
For psychological injuries However, the connection between negligence and the injured plaintiff's symptoms may be more difficult to establish. It may be because the plaintiff has a troubled past, has a difficult relationship with their parents, or has been a user of alcohol or drugs.
If you've been involved in an accident that is serious to your vehicle, it is important to consult an experienced attorney. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP have years of experience representing clients in personal injury commercial and business litigation, and motor vehicle crash cases. Our lawyers have developed working relationships with independent doctors across a variety of specialties, expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations as well with private investigators.
Damages
The damages that a plaintiff may recover in motor vehicle litigation can include both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages includes any monetary expenses that can be easily added up and calculated as the sum of medical treatment, lost wages, property repair and even future financial losses, like a decrease in earning capacity.
New York law also recognizes the right to recover non-economic damages like suffering and pain, as well as loss of enjoyment, which cannot be reduced to a monetary amount. The damages must be proven through extensive evidence like depositions from family members and friends of the plaintiff, medical records, or other expert witness testimony.
In cases where there are multiple defendants, courts will often use comparative fault rules to determine the amount of damages to be divided between them. This requires the jury to determine the degree of fault each defendant was responsible for the accident and then divide the total amount of damages by that percentage of blame. New York law however, doesn't allow this. 1602 exempts owners of vehicles from the rule of comparative negligence in the event of injuries caused by drivers of cars or trucks. The analysis to determine whether the presumption of permissiveness is complicated. Most of the time the only way to prove that the owner did not grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle will be sufficient to overturn the presumption.