Motor Vehicle Litigation
A lawsuit is required when the liability is being contested. The Defendant will then have the opportunity to respond to the complaint.
New York follows pure comparative fault rules which means that should a jury find you responsible for an accident the amount of damages awarded will be reduced by your percentage of negligence. This rule does not apply to the owners of vehicles that are rented out or leased to minors.
Duty of Care
In a lawsuit for negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed them a duty to exercise reasonable care. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, however those who sit behind the car have a higher obligation to others in their area of activity. This includes not causing motor vehicle accidents.
Courtrooms compare an individual's actions with what a normal person would do in similar circumstances to determine a reasonable standard of care. Expert witnesses are often required in cases of medical malpractice. Experts who have a greater understanding of particular fields may be held to a greater standard of care.
If someone violates their duty of care, it may cause damage to the victim as well as their property. The victim is then required to prove that the defendant's breach of their duty resulted in the injury and damages that they sustained. Causation is a key element of any negligence claim. It involves proving both the proximate and actual causes of the damages and injuries.
For instance, if a person runs a red light, it's likely that they will be hit by a vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they will be responsible for the repairs. However, the real cause of the crash could be a cut or bricks that later develop into a serious infection.
Breach of Duty
The second aspect of negligence is the breach of duty by an individual defendant. This must be proved in order to be awarded compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty occurs when the at-fault party's actions do not match what an average person would do in similar circumstances.
For instance, a doctor has many professional obligations to his patients. These obligations stem from the law of the state and licensing authorities. Motorists owe a duty care to other drivers and pedestrians on the road to drive safely and observe traffic laws. A driver who breaches this obligation and creates an accident is accountable for the injuries sustained by the victim.
Lawyers can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to establish the existence of the duty of care, and then demonstrate that the defendant did not meet that standard in his actions. It is a matter of fact that the jury has to decide if the defendant fulfilled the standard or not.
The plaintiff must also prove that the breach of duty of the defendant was the primary cause of his or her injuries. This can be more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty and breach. For instance, a defendant may have crossed a red light, but the action was not the primary cause of the crash. In this way, causation is often contested by defendants in collision cases.
Causation
In motor vehicle accident lawsuit vehicle cases, the plaintiff must establish that there is a causal connection between the breach by the defendant and their injuries. For instance, if the plaintiff sustained neck injuries as a result of an accident that involved rear-ends and his or her lawyer could argue that the collision was the cause of the injury. Other elements that are required for the collision to occur, such as being in a stationary vehicle are not culpable, and do not affect the jury's determination of the liability.
For psychological injuries, however, the link between a negligent act and the victim's afflictions may be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff had an unhappy childhood, a poor relationship with his or her parents, abused alcohol and drugs, or suffered prior unemployment could have a bearing on the severity of the psychological problems he or suffers from following a crash, but the courts typically look at these factors as part of the context from which the plaintiff's accident resulted rather than an independent cause of the injuries.
It is important to consult an experienced lawyer in the event that you've been involved in a serious accident. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have extensive experience in representing clients in motor vehicle accident as well as business and commercial litigation, and personal injury cases. Our lawyers have established working relationships with independent physicians in a wide range of specialties as well as expert witnesses in accidents reconstruction and computer simulations as well with private investigators.
Damages
The damages plaintiffs can seek in motor vehicle litigation include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages covers any monetary costs that can easily be added to calculate a total, for example, medical treatment and lost wages, property repair, and even future financial losses, like a decrease in earning capacity.
New York law recognizes that non-economic damages like pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of living can't be reduced to financial value. However these damages must be established to exist with the help of extensive evidence, such as deposition testimony of the plaintiff's close family members and friends medical records, deposition testimony, and other expert witness testimony.
In the event of multiple defendants, courts will typically apply the rules of comparative fault to determine the amount of total damages that should be divided between them. The jury has to determine the percentage of blame each defendant is responsible for the accident and then divide the total amount of damages awarded by the percentage. New York law however, does not allow for this. 1602 specifically excludes owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule when it comes to injuries sustained by drivers of the vehicles. The process to determine if the presumption is permissive or not is complicated. In general it is only a clear evidence that the owner refused 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 will then have the opportunity to respond to the complaint.
New York follows pure comparative fault rules which means that should a jury find you responsible for an accident the amount of damages awarded will be reduced by your percentage of negligence. This rule does not apply to the owners of vehicles that are rented out or leased to minors.
Duty of Care
In a lawsuit for negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed them a duty to exercise reasonable care. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, however those who sit behind the car have a higher obligation to others in their area of activity. This includes not causing motor vehicle accidents.
Courtrooms compare an individual's actions with what a normal person would do in similar circumstances to determine a reasonable standard of care. Expert witnesses are often required in cases of medical malpractice. Experts who have a greater understanding of particular fields may be held to a greater standard of care.
If someone violates their duty of care, it may cause damage to the victim as well as their property. The victim is then required to prove that the defendant's breach of their duty resulted in the injury and damages that they sustained. Causation is a key element of any negligence claim. It involves proving both the proximate and actual causes of the damages and injuries.
For instance, if a person runs a red light, it's likely that they will be hit by a vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they will be responsible for the repairs. However, the real cause of the crash could be a cut or bricks that later develop into a serious infection.
Breach of Duty
The second aspect of negligence is the breach of duty by an individual defendant. This must be proved in order to be awarded compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty occurs when the at-fault party's actions do not match what an average person would do in similar circumstances.
For instance, a doctor has many professional obligations to his patients. These obligations stem from the law of the state and licensing authorities. Motorists owe a duty care to other drivers and pedestrians on the road to drive safely and observe traffic laws. A driver who breaches this obligation and creates an accident is accountable for the injuries sustained by the victim.
Lawyers can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to establish the existence of the duty of care, and then demonstrate that the defendant did not meet that standard in his actions. It is a matter of fact that the jury has to decide if the defendant fulfilled the standard or not.
The plaintiff must also prove that the breach of duty of the defendant was the primary cause of his or her injuries. This can be more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty and breach. For instance, a defendant may have crossed a red light, but the action was not the primary cause of the crash. In this way, causation is often contested by defendants in collision cases.
Causation
In motor vehicle accident lawsuit vehicle cases, the plaintiff must establish that there is a causal connection between the breach by the defendant and their injuries. For instance, if the plaintiff sustained neck injuries as a result of an accident that involved rear-ends and his or her lawyer could argue that the collision was the cause of the injury. Other elements that are required for the collision to occur, such as being in a stationary vehicle are not culpable, and do not affect the jury's determination of the liability.
For psychological injuries, however, the link between a negligent act and the victim's afflictions may be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff had an unhappy childhood, a poor relationship with his or her parents, abused alcohol and drugs, or suffered prior unemployment could have a bearing on the severity of the psychological problems he or suffers from following a crash, but the courts typically look at these factors as part of the context from which the plaintiff's accident resulted rather than an independent cause of the injuries.
It is important to consult an experienced lawyer in the event that you've been involved in a serious accident. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have extensive experience in representing clients in motor vehicle accident as well as business and commercial litigation, and personal injury cases. Our lawyers have established working relationships with independent physicians in a wide range of specialties as well as expert witnesses in accidents reconstruction and computer simulations as well with private investigators.
Damages
The damages plaintiffs can seek in motor vehicle litigation include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages covers any monetary costs that can easily be added to calculate a total, for example, medical treatment and lost wages, property repair, and even future financial losses, like a decrease in earning capacity.
New York law recognizes that non-economic damages like pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of living can't be reduced to financial value. However these damages must be established to exist with the help of extensive evidence, such as deposition testimony of the plaintiff's close family members and friends medical records, deposition testimony, and other expert witness testimony.
In the event of multiple defendants, courts will typically apply the rules of comparative fault to determine the amount of total damages that should be divided between them. The jury has to determine the percentage of blame each defendant is responsible for the accident and then divide the total amount of damages awarded by the percentage. New York law however, does not allow for this. 1602 specifically excludes owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule when it comes to injuries sustained by drivers of the vehicles. The process to determine if the presumption is permissive or not is complicated. In general it is only a clear evidence that the owner refused permission to the driver to operate the vehicle will be sufficient to overturn the presumption.