Driver's Claims That Plaintiff Was To Blame For Accident Disproved By Expert

It is not rare for an individual injured in a motor vehicle accident to be confronted with a driver who denies fault

. Frequently, these defendants in fact blame the plaintiff for the accident. As a large number of motor vehicle accidents are not witnessed by bystanders such cases may come down to the credibility of the plaintiff as opposed to the credibility of the defendant. Not surprisingly in cases where this happens the insurance company covering the driver will often take the side of the defendant.

Lawyers experienced in handling such claims, especially when the case involves severe injuries to the victim, understand that they really do carry the load of proving that the defendant was responsible. Counting on a credibility battle is not likely to lead to a settlement and leaves the result of a trial up in the air. Despite the fact that the economics of a case do not always justify using experts, in cases where the damages are enough and there is plenty of insurance coverage or there are resources that could be applied toward a compensation of the victims, it might be appropriate to do so.

Consider the documented lawsuit in which a truck took a right hand turn as a bicycle messenger was attempting to pass it on the right. The truck cut off the bicyclist. The front of the truck hit the bicyclist throwing him off the bicycle. The truck's front tire and rear tire both ran over the victim. The plaintiff sustained fractures to his pelvis and serious internal injuries. The plaintiff was 22 years old when the accident took place.

The defendant maintained that he was not to blame for the accident. In what is an all too common defense position the driver blamed the plaintiff for the accident. The defendant maintained that he signaled prior to taking the turn, claimed that the bicyclist ran a stop sign, and denied twice running over the plaintiff. The victim was clear that the driver did not have his turn signal on and that the defendant could not have been paying attention when he made the turn.

The law firm that handled this lawsuit rebutted the defendant's version of how the accident happened using the support of an accident reconstruction expert. By demonstrating that the truck did actually run over the bicyclist twice the law firm was able to show that the defendant must not have been paying attention to traffic on his right when he made the turn. Consequently, the law firm reported that the case settled for $400,000.

Should insurance company adjusters side with the driver, usually the most effective way to convince them to change their view is to pesent them with independent evidence that invalidates the defendant's account of the accident. Then, if the adjusters continue to go by their insured's version, then the claim has been fully prepared for trial. When an expert is critical to achieve that goal an experienced lawyer will weigh the cost of bringing in an expert against the likelihood that the expert will be able to rebut the drivers position and the predicted span of the amount a jury would give for the victims injuries.

by: Joseph Hernandez

POST COMMENT

Fraud Prevention Special Suites Available at Comfort Suites St. Augustine Duct Cleaning Oakville Cannot Load File Exe ? - Do the Following ! Best Hostels Deals in Barcelona YOU TEST YOU NBA Summary Guinea Pig Cages Orange Blossom Water Crme Brule Going Green: Green Issues What are preservatives? Driving Successful ERP Implementations Bath Tub Faucets: Making Your Bath Tub Unique