Jury Gives Plaintiff $467,000 After Driver's False Account Of Reason For Vehicle Accident Is Refuted

Jury Gives Plaintiff $467,000 After Driver's False Account Of Reason For Vehicle Accident Is Refuted

What happens when you are seriously harmed in a motor vehicle accident due to another driver but that driver not only denies causing the accident, but even claims you were the one who caused it? You need to put yourself in the hands of an attorney who has the experience and the ability to conduct a full investigation of the place where the accident took place, who will examine every aspect of the scene, and who has the common sense to understand where to gather the right evidence to rebut the story given by the other driver.

This article examines a lawsuit where the defense attempted blaming the victim. The defendant was a driver of a truck turning left turn into an intersection and struck the victim's car. The plaintiff claimed that he sped up just before he went into the intersection and entered the intersection with the yellow light before it turned red. The driver of the truck, on the other hand, stated that the driver of the car had been speeding and went through a red light when he went into the intersection. The way the lights at the intersection operated, if the victim's light had been yellow then the truck driver's turn signal it would not have been possible for it to turn green as the defendant claimed.

This case involved serious injuries to the victim. The victim was forty years old at the time of the accident. He sustained a number of fractures to his forearm that required internal fixation surgery. He further suffered a head laceration that required about 20 staples to close.

The law firm that handled the case took the correct approach and conducted its own thorough investigation of the accident. First, the lawyer studied the scene of the accident (the intersection) and then learned that even if the plaintiff victim's light had already turned red before he entered the intersection, the defendant truck driver's left turn arrow would also have been red. The next green would have been for traffic from the left of the truck. The defendant truck driver would not have the right of way until that traffic (the driver waiting to the defendant's left) had a chance to go through the intersection.

Next the law firm needed to proof the pattern of the lights. To accomplish this the law firm took the testimony of a Department of Transportation representative. This testimony was then combined with that of a witness to the accident who had been waiting at a red light to the defendant truck driver's left. As the witnesses' light had was still red when the accident happened, given the way the lights at the intersection where programmed, the defendant truck driver's left turn signal must have been red when he made the left turn and slammed into the plaintiff.

The lawsuit went to trial because the insurance company for the defendant would not settle the matter. It would not settle the claim even with the evidence that the law firm had been able to put together. It would not settle the claim even for the plaintiff's demand of $300,000 just 1 day prior to the trial. Following the trial the jury apportioned 15% of fault for the accident on the plaintiff and 85% of fault for the accident on the defendant. The law firm was able to report that after accounting for these percentages the victim recovered $467,000.

This lawsuit provides an example of the importance that the right lawyer and the right law firm can make. Rather than accept the version of the accident given by the defendant the law firm in this case did its own through investigation of the scene of the accident and was able to piece together the testimony of a witness with information about the mechanical operation of the lights at the intersection to refute the position taken by the truck driver.

The matter also provides an example of how insurance company adjusters can become so fixated on the insured's version of the accident that even irrefutable evidence to the contrary will fail to convince them to settle the matter. This happens a great deal more frequently than many people realize.

Even though the one thing that usually will motivate an adjuster to settle a case is the fear of risking a much higher award at trial it is as if the adjuster in this case just refused to see the risk.

POST COMMENT

Get Sectional Garage Doors to Keep Your Garage Safe and Beautiful Gamit search engine marketing helps in attaining top Search engine rankings Garage Door Sizes: Endless Options to Choose From Basic Web Design Tips You Can't Afford to Overlook Dream Vacations At Destin Florida Vacation Rentals Best Mobile Phone Deals- Use Your Phone at Cheap and Affordable Rates Improving Your Memory - Why You Need to Sharpen Your Brain's Auditory System Man And Van Edinburgh For Removals Glasgow And Livingston Affiliate Programs -- The Search Engines Four Sights And Attractions You Can See Quickly And Easily With Car Hire Rome Statistical Sampling Plans for Audits - Webinar By GlobalCompliancePanel Las Vegas Home Alarm Systems Supply Families Thorough Security At Affordable Prices Helpful tools for SEO | Search Engine Optimization tools