tailorspade6

Motor Vehicle Litigation When a claim for liability is litigated and the liability is disputed, it is necessary to make a complaint. The defendant then has the chance to respond to the complaint. New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that in the event that a jury determines you to be at fault for an accident the amount of damages you will be reduced based on your percentage of blame. There is an exception to this rule: CPLR SS 1602 excludes the owners of vehicles that are rented or leased by minors. Duty of Care In a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed an obligation of care to them. This duty is owed by everyone, but those who operate vehicles owe an even greater duty to others in their field. This includes ensuring that there are no accidents in motor vehicles. Courtrooms examine an individual's conduct with what a normal person would do under the same circumstances to determine an acceptable standard of care. This is why expert witnesses are often required when cases involve medical malpractice. People who have superior knowledge of a specific area may also be held to an even higher standard of care than other people in similar situations. A person's breach of their duty of care can cause harm to a victim, or their property. The victim has to establish that the defendant's breach of their duty caused the injury and damages that they have suffered. Causation proof is a crucial element in any negligence case, and it involves looking at both the actual basis of the injury or damages as well as the proximate cause of the injury or damage. If a person is stopped at a stop sign it is likely that they will be struck by a vehicle. If their car is damaged they'll be responsible for the repairs. But the reason for the accident could be a cut in a brick that later develops into a dangerous infection. Breach of Duty The second aspect of negligence is the breach of duty committed by the defendant. The breach of duty must be proved in order to receive compensation for a personal injury claim. motor vehicle accident attorney rock hill of duty occurs when the actions of a party who is at fault aren't in line with what reasonable people would do in similar circumstances. For instance, a doctor has a variety of professional obligations to his patients based on the law of the state and licensing boards. Motorists have a duty of care to other motorists and pedestrians on the road to be safe and follow traffic laws. A driver who breaches this duty and results in an accident is responsible for the injuries of the victim. A lawyer can use the “reasonable person” standard to prove the existence of an obligation of care. The lawyer must then demonstrate that the defendant did not meet that standard in his actions. The jury will decide if the defendant complied with or did not meet the standard. The plaintiff must also establish that the breach of duty by the defendant was the main cause of the injuries. It can be more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. For example it is possible that a defendant crossed a red light, but it's likely that his or her actions 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 the injuries. For instance, if a plaintiff sustained an injury to the neck as a result of a rear-end collision, his or her lawyer might argue that the accident caused the injury. Other factors that are necessary to cause the collision, like being in a stationary car, 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 an victim's afflictions may be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff has a a troubled childhood, poor relationship with their parents, used alcohol and drugs or had prior unemployment could have a bearing on the severity of the psychological issues he or she suffers after an accident, but courts typically consider these factors as an element of the background conditions that caused the accident was triggered, not as a separate cause of the injuries. If you've been involved in a serious motor vehicle crash it is essential to consult an experienced attorney. The lawyers at Arnold & Clifford, LLP, have extensive experience in representing clients in personal injury cases, business and commercial litigation, and motor vehicle accident cases. Our lawyers have developed working relationships with independent doctors with a variety of specialties as well as expert witnesses in accidents reconstruction and computer simulations as well with private investigators. Damages The damages that a plaintiff can recover in a motor vehicle case include both economic and non-economic damages. The first type of damages comprises any financial expenses that can be easily added up and calculated as a sum, such as medical expenses and lost wages, property repair and even future financial losses such as diminished earning capacity. New York law also recognizes the right to seek non-economic damages, such as suffering and pain, as well as loss of enjoyment of life which cannot be reduced to a monetary amount. However these damages must be proved to exist through extensive evidence, such as deposition testimony from the plaintiff's close family members and friends medical records, as well as other expert witness testimony. In cases where there are multiple defendants, Courts will often use the concept of comparative negligence to decide the percentage of damages awarded should be divided between them. The jury must determine how much fault each defendant was responsible for the accident and to then divide the total damages awarded by that percentage of 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 it is only a clear evidence that the owner refused permission to the driver to operate the vehicle can be able to overcome the presumption.