Expert Assists Bicyclist In Getting $400,000 Settlement From Defendant

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

. Often, these defendants basically blame the victim for the accident. As many motor vehicle accidents are not observed by bystanders these kinds of lawsuits could depend on the credibility of the victim versus the credibility of the driver. Not surprisingly when this occurs the adjuster for the insurance company insuring the defendant will often align themselves with their insured.

Lawyers seasoned in dealing with such matters, especially in those that deal with serious injuries to the victim, understand that they really do carry the load of proving that the driver was responsible. Counting on a credibility battle is unlikely to result in a settlement and wagers on the outcome at trial. Despite the fact that 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 resources that could be applied toward a recovery, it may be proper to do so.

Consider the documented claim in which a truck took a right hand turn as a bicycle messenger was trying to pass it on the right. The truck cut off the bicyclist. The front of the truck slammed into the bicyclist throwing him from the bicycle. The truck's front tire and rear tire both ran over the victim. The bicyclist sustained pelvic fractures and major internal injuries. He 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 had his signal on prior to taking the turn. The defendant also maintained that the plaintiff entered the intersection without stopping for the stop sign, and further maintianed that he did not run over the victim twice. The plaintiff was clear that the defendant did not have his turn signal on and that the driver could not have been paying attention when he made the turn.

The law firm that represented the victim rebutted the truck driver's account of the accident aided by the support of an accident reconstruction expert. In demonstrating that the truck did in fact run over the plaintiff twice the law firm established defendant could not have been paying attention to traffic on his right as he made the turn. Because of this, the law firm published that they were able to obtain a settlement in the amount of $400,000 for the plaintiff.

When insurance company adjusters align themselves with the defendant, often the best way to convince them to alter their view is to compile independent evidence that invalidates the driver's version of the accident. Then, if the insurance company still do not change their position, then the case has been fully prepared for trial. When an expert is critical to achieve that goal an experienced lawyer will consider the cost of bringing in an expert versus the likelihood that the expert will be able to disprove the driver's claim and the probable span of how much a jury would give for the harm sustained by the victim.

by: Joseph Hernandez

POST COMMENT

Communion Rosary Favors - The Perfect Guide Happy Napper Pillow Christening Rosary Favors - How Can You Make A Rosary On Your Own? How To Land A Job: Bend The Rules A Little Rachael Ray 80655 10-Piece Hard-Anodized Cookware Set Ski package Everlasting Life The Believer Of John 3:16 Gain-adjustable Active Wifi Rfid Reader Thinking about ink The selestion of Spyder ski wear Henry Wright-author Of A More Excellent Way The origin of snowboarding Pipe Bursting - When Pipe Lining Is Not Possible