Expert Assists Accident Victim Rebut Defendant's Version Of Accident

It is not rare for a person hurt in a vehicle accident to be presented with a driver who denies fault

. Frequently, these drivers basically blame the plaintiff for the accident. As a large number of motor vehicle accidents do not have any witnesses the outcome of these kinds of claims may depend on the credibility of the plaintiff versus the credibility of the defendant. Lawyers who represent plaintiffs find that if this happens the insurance company insuring the driver will frequently align themselves with their insured.

Lawyers seasoned in litigating such matters, most notably when the case involves major injuries to the plaintiff, understand that they actually do bear the load of showing that the driver was responsible. Counting on a credibility battle is unlikely to lead to a settlement and leaves the result of a trial up in the air. Even though the economics of a case do not always justify using experts, if the damages are enough and there is plenty of insurance coverage or there are assets that could be applied toward a compensation of the victims, it may be appropriate to do so.

Examine the reported claim in which a truck hit a male messenger on a bicycle as the truck was making a right hand turn. The bicyclist's path was cut off by the truck. The front of the truck struck the bicyclist who was knocked down and was run over first by the trucks front tire and then by the trucks rear tire. The bicyclist sustained fractures to his pelvis and suffered serious internal injuries. He was 22 years old at the time of the accident.

The driver maintained that he was not to blame for the accident. In what is an all too common defense position the driver blamed the victim for the accident. As per the truck driver, he signaled prior to taking the turn, maintained that the plaintiff ran a stop sign, and further maintianed that he did not run over the victim twice. The victim was clear that the defendant 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 represented the victim rebutted the defendant's version of the accident with the support of an accident reconstruction expert. In demonstrating that the truck did actually run over the victim twice the law firm was able to show that the defendant must not have been paying attention to traffic on his right when he took the turn. Consequently, the law firm documented that they were able to obtain a settlement in the amount of $400,000.

When insurance company adjusters align themselves with the insured driver, normally the best way to convince them to reverse their position is to put together independent evidence that invalidates the driver's rendition of the accident. Plus, if the adjusters still do not reverse their position, then the case has been properly prepared for trial. If an expert is critical to achieve that goal an experienced lawyer will consider the cost of the expert versus the probability that the expert will be able to rebut the insured's claim and the forecast range of the amount a jury would give for the harm sustained by the victim.

by: J. Hernandez

POST COMMENT

Dealing with marital infidelity Your Autistic Youngster The 2 Different Types Of Head Lettuce Things You Never Knew About Wakefield, West Yorkshire In England Why Good Intentions Might Not Lead To Good Results Why Use Natural Soap, Is it Really Better For You? How to Roast Turkey Best Sunless Tanner- Will it be exact just for one Factoring For Construction Industry SPACESHIP INSTRUCTION MANUAL NEEDED WORLDWIDE being in the right mindset to meditate How To Throw A Surprise Party Hisense Group President At Shu