14 Misconceptions Common To Motor Vehicle Legal

motor vehicle lawsuit Vehicle Litigation

A lawsuit is required in cases where liability is challenged. The defendant then has the chance to respond to the complaint.

New York follows pure comparative fault rules and, in the event that a jury finds you responsible for the crash the damages awarded will be reduced by your percentage of negligence. There is an exception to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes owners of vehicles rented or leased by minors.

Duty of Care

In a case of negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had an obligation of care to them. Nearly everyone owes this obligation to everyone else, however those who sit behind the steering wheel of a motor vehicle attorneys vehicle have a greater obligation to other people in their field of operation. This includes ensuring that they do not cause car accidents.

In courtrooms, the standard of care is determined by comparing the actions of an individual with what a typical person would do in the same conditions. In the case of medical malpractice experts are often required. Experts who have a superior understanding in a particular field can also be held to an 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 must then demonstrate that the defendant's violation of their duty caused the harm and damages they suffered. Causation is a key element of any negligence claim. It involves proving the proximate and real causes of the injury and damages.

If someone runs an intersection it is likely that they will be hit by another vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they'll be responsible for the repairs. But the actual cause of the crash might be a cut or bricks that later develop into a deadly infection.

Breach of Duty

A defendant's breach of duty is the second factor of negligence that must be proven to win compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty happens when the at-fault party's actions are not in line with what reasonable people would do in similar circumstances.

For instance, a physician has several professional obligations to his patients that are governed by state law and licensing boards. Motorists owe a duty care to other motorists and pedestrians to be safe and follow traffic laws. If a driver violates this obligation of care and results in an accident, the driver is liable for the injuries suffered by the victim.

Lawyers can rely on the "reasonable person" standard to prove the existence of the duty of care, and then show that the defendant did not comply with the standard in his actions. It is a matter of fact for the jury to decide whether the defendant fulfilled the standard or not.

The plaintiff must also establish that the breach of duty by the defendant was the main cause of his or her injuries. This can be more difficult to prove than the existence of a duty and breach. A defendant could have driven through a red light but that's not the cause of the bicycle accident. This is why causation is often contested by defendants in crash cases.

Causation

In motor vehicle-related cases, the plaintiff must prove a causal link between the breach of the defendant and their injuries. For instance, if a plaintiff sustained an injury to his neck in a rear-end collision the lawyer might argue that the collision caused the injury. Other factors that are needed to cause the collision, like being in a stationary car, are not culpable and will not affect the jury's decision of liability.

For psychological injuries, however, the link between a negligent act and an 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, was a user of alcohol and drugs or had previous unemployment may have some influence on the severity of the psychological issues she suffers after an accident, however, the courts generally view these factors as part of the circumstances that led to the accident from which the plaintiff's injury was triggered, not as a separate reason for the injuries.

It is essential to speak with an experienced attorney should you be involved in a serious accident. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have extensive experience representing clients in motor vehicle law vehicle accident commercial and business litigation, and personal injury cases. Our lawyers have established working relationships with independent physicians in many specialties as well as experts in computer simulations and accident reconstruction.

Damages

In motor vehicle litigation, a person can be able to recover both economic and noneconomic damages. The first type of damages is any monetary costs that can easily be added to calculate a sum, such as medical treatment, lost wages, property repair and even future financial losses, like a diminished earning capacity.

New York law also recognizes the right to recover non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment, which cannot be reduced to a monetary amount. The proof of these damages is through extensive evidence like depositions of family members and friends of the plaintiff medical records, depositions, or other expert witness testimony.

In cases involving multiple defendants, Courts will often use comparative negligence rules to determine the proportion of damages awarded should be divided between them. This requires the jury to determine the amount of fault each defendant was responsible for the accident, Motor Vehicle Litigation and then divide the total amount of damages by the percentage of the fault. New York law however, does not permit this. 1602 specifically excludes owners of vehicles from the comparative fault rule when it comes to injuries sustained by the driver of those cars and trucks. The subsequent analysis of whether the presumption that permissive use applies is not straightforward, and typically only a clear showing that the owner was explicitly denied permission to operate the vehicle will overcome it.