warmotion93

Motor Vehicle Litigation A lawsuit is necessary 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 to be the cause of the crash the amount of damages awarded will be reduced by the percentage of negligence. There is a caveat to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes the owners of vehicles that are hired or leased by minors. Duty of Care In a negligence lawsuit the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed them a duty to act with reasonable care. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, but individuals who get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle are obligated to the other drivers in their zone of activity. This includes ensuring that there are no accidents in motor vehicles. In courtrooms, the standards of care are determined by comparing an individual's conduct to what a normal person would do under similar conditions. In cases of medical malpractice experts are typically required. Experts with a superior understanding of particular fields may be held to a greater standard of care. When a person breaches their duty of care, they could cause harm to the victim and/or their property. The victim must then demonstrate that the defendant's violation of their duty led to the damage and injury they suffered. The proof of causation is an essential aspect of any negligence case which involves looking at both the actual cause of the injury or damages and the proximate reason for the damage or injury. If a person is stopped at a stop sign and fails to obey the stop sign, they could be struck by another vehicle. If their vehicle is damaged, they will be responsible for the repairs. The real cause of the crash could be a brick cut that causes an infection. Breach of Duty A defendant's breach of duty is the second factor of negligence that must be proved to obtain compensation in a personal injury case. A breach of duty is when the actions taken by the person who is at fault are insufficient to what a normal person would do in similar circumstances. For instance, a doctor has a variety of professional obligations to his patients. These obligations stem from the law of the state and licensing authorities. Drivers have a duty to care for other drivers and pedestrians, and to respect traffic laws. If a driver violates this obligation of care and causes an accident, he is liable for the injuries suffered by the victim. A lawyer may use the “reasonable person” standard to establish the existence of the duty of care, and then show that the defendant failed to satisfy the standard through his actions. It is a matter of fact for the jury to decide if the defendant was in compliance with the standard or not. The plaintiff must also prove that the breach by the defendant was the main 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 light, but the action wasn't the main reason for your bicycle crash. The issue of causation is often challenged in crash cases by defendants. Causation In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff must establish a causal link between the defendant's breach of duty and their injuries. For example, if the plaintiff suffered a neck injury from an accident that involved rear-ends, his or her lawyer will argue that the collision was the cause of the injury. Other factors that are necessary to cause the collision, such as being in a stationary vehicle, are not culpable, and do not affect the jury's decision of the liability. It may be harder to establish a causal relationship between a negligent act, and the plaintiff's psychological symptoms. motor vehicle accident lawyer hawthorne that the plaintiff experienced a an uneasy childhood, a bad relationship with their parents, used alcohol and drugs or had prior unemployment could have a influence on the severity the psychological problems he or suffers from following a crash, but the courts typically consider these factors as part of the circumstances that led to the accident from which the plaintiff's injury was triggered, not as a separate cause of the injuries. It is crucial to consult an experienced lawyer when you've been involved in a serious accident. The attorneys at Arnold & Clifford, LLP, have extensive experience in representing clients in personal injury, commercial and business litigation and motor vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have established relationships with independent physicians across a variety of specialties including expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations, as well as with private investigators. Damages In motor vehicle litigation, a person can get both economic and non-economic damages. The first category of damages includes any monetary costs that can be easily added up and calculated as the sum of 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 suffering and pain, as well as loss of enjoyment of life cannot be reduced to money. However, these damages must be proved to exist through extensive evidence, such as deposition testimony from plaintiff's family members and close 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. This requires the jury to determine the degree of fault each defendant incurred in the accident and to then divide the total damages award by that percentage of the fault. However, New York law 1602 exempts owners of vehicles from the rule of comparative negligence in cases where injuries are sustained by the drivers of cars or trucks. The analysis to determine whether the presumption is permissive is complicated. The majority of the time there is only a clear proof that the owner was not able to grant permission to the driver to operate the vehicle will be sufficient to overturn the presumption.