curvethomas8

motor vehicle accident attorneys eugene is necessary when liability is in dispute. The defendant will then have the opportunity to respond to the complaint. New York has a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that, should a jury find that you were at fault for an accident the damages you incur will be reduced according to your percentage of blame. This rule does not apply to owners of vehicles that are leased or rented to minors. Duty of Care In a negligence case the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant was obligated to exercise reasonable care. Almost everybody owes this duty to everyone else, however those who are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle have a higher obligation to the people in their area of operation. This includes ensuring that they don't cause car accidents. In courtrooms the standard of care is determined by comparing the actions of an individual to what a normal person would do in similar conditions. In the case of medical malpractice experts are typically required. Experts with a higher level of expertise in a specific field could be held to an higher standard of care than other individuals in similar situations. A breach of a person's obligation of care can cause harm to a victim, or their property. The victim has to demonstrate that the defendant's violation of duty caused the damage and injury they suffered. The proof of causation is an essential part of any negligence case which involves looking at both the actual basis of the injury or damages and the proximate cause of the injury or damage. If a person is stopped at the stop sign, they are likely to be struck by a vehicle. If their car is damaged, they'll have to pay for the repairs. But the reason for the crash might be a cut from the brick, which then develops into a potentially dangerous infection. Breach of Duty The second element of negligence is the breach of duty by a defendant. This must be proved in order to be awarded compensation for a personal injury claim. A breach of duty occurs when the actions of the person who is at fault are insufficient to what an ordinary person would do under similar circumstances. A doctor, for instance, has a variety of professional obligations to his patients that are governed by the law of the state and licensing boards. Motorists owe a duty care to other drivers and pedestrians to drive safely and observe traffic laws. If a motorist violates this obligation of care and causes an accident, he is responsible for the victim's injuries. A lawyer may use the “reasonable individuals” standard to prove that there is a duty of prudence and then show that the defendant did not adhere to this standard with his actions. It is a question of fact that the jury has to decide whether the defendant fulfilled the standard or not. The plaintiff must also establish that the breach of duty of the defendant was the primary cause of his or her injuries. It can be more difficult to prove this than a breach of duty. A defendant could have driven through a red light but that's not the cause of the accident on your bicycle. This is why causation is frequently disputed by the defendants in cases of crash. Causation In motor vehicle cases, the plaintiff has to establish a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and his or her injuries. If a plaintiff suffered an injury to the neck in an accident with rear-end damage then his or her attorney will argue that the incident caused the injury. Other factors that are necessary to cause the collision, like being in a stationary vehicle, are not culpable, and won't affect the jury's decision to determine the cause of the accident. For psychological injuries However, the connection between an act of negligence and an injured plaintiff's symptoms may be more difficult to establish. The fact that the plaintiff had a troubled childhood, poor relationship with his or her parents, was a user of alcohol and drugs or prior unemployment could have a influence on the severity the psychological issues is suffering from following a crash, but the courts typically view these elements as part of the context that caused the accident in which the plaintiff occurred, rather than as an independent reason for the injuries. If you've been involved in an accident that is serious to your vehicle, it is important to speak with a seasoned attorney. Arnold & Clifford LLP attorneys have extensive experience representing clients in motor vehicle accident cases, business and commercial litigation, and personal injury cases. Our lawyers have formed working relationships with independent physicians in a wide range of specialties, expert witnesses in accident reconstruction and computer simulations as well as with private investigators. Damages In motor vehicle litigation, a plaintiff could recover both economic and noneconomic damages. The first type of damages includes all costs that can easily be summed up and calculated as the total amount, which includes medical expenses and lost wages, repairs to property, and even future financial loss, for instance a diminished earning capacity. New York law also recognizes the right to recover non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering as well as loss of enjoyment, which cannot be reduced to a dollar amount. However the damages must be proved to exist by a variety of evidence, including deposition testimony from the plaintiff's close family members and friends medical records, as well as other expert witness testimony. In the event of multiple defendants, courts will typically use the comparative fault rule to determine the amount of damages that must be divided between them. This requires the jury to determine how much responsibility each defendant incurred in the accident and then divide the total damages award by the percentage of fault. New York law however, does not allow for this. 1602 disqualifies vehicle owners from the rule of comparative negligence in cases where injuries are sustained by drivers of trucks or cars. The resulting analysis of whether the presumption of permissive use is applicable is a bit nebulous and usually only a clear evidence that the owner was explicitly did not have permission to operate his vehicle will overcome it.