Pedestrian Recovers $1,200,000 When Defendant Claimed Medical Emergency Defense

"Take responsibility." It is an expression that is frequently mentioned but not oftentimes lived up to

. In motor vehicle accident matters it is all to frequent that one sees a driver or other party deny, instead of take, blame for causing the accident. It is not uncommon for a lawyer who represents victims with severe injuries due to a motor vehicle accident to be confronted with a matter in which the driver-defendant just plain lies about how the accident took place.

In some of these cases the use of an expert is an absolute necessity. In other cases, though, the best strategy could be to let the facts of the matter speak for themselves. Uncovering and studying every detail of the location of the accident, talking with everyone who saw the accident, and using common sense may be all it takes to be able to disprove the version made up by the defendant. Look at the way the attorney helping the victim managed to position the following matter:

This lawsuit involved the driver of a tractor-trailer who lost control of his vehicle. The truck ended up on the sidewalk by the side of the road where it hit a pedestrian. In response to the victim's lawsuit the driver claimed that he was not at fault in the accident since the reason he had lost control of the truck was that he experienced a loss of consciousness after a severe fit of coughing. The truck involved in the accident was owned by the driver's employer. In addition, the driver had been acting in the scope of his employment when the accident happened. These facts would make the employer liable if their employee, the driver, was liable. The driver and his employer therefore claimed that this case involved a medical emergency and that he was thus not responsible and that neither of them were liable. The direction of the case started to turn, however, as the law firm representing the victim did not accept the claims by the driver and his employer. They continued to investigate the matter and discovered that the driver had previously claimed a medical emergency on three separate occasions.

The employer responded with a physician's certificate put together just sixteen days ahead of the accident clearing their employee as capable of operating a tractor trailer. They presented the certificate in an attempt to absolve themselves of liability. The law firm dug further into the situation and found that the doctor had written the certificate based on false information given by the driver consequently invalidating the certificate. Moreover, they secured testimony from the police officers who went to the accident that the defendant was lucid at the location and that he did not mention having lost consciousness at the time they spoke to him him at the scene.

The pedestrian hit by the truck was a fifty eight year old female. She suffered a rupture of a ligament in her dominant thumb. In addition, she suffered a number of fractures including fractures to three of her ribs, a displaced fracture of a clavicle, and a fractured skull. Since the defendants claimed they had no responsibility for the accident, and consequently also denied any liability, the law firm that helped the woman went forward with the case all the way to trail. While in the trial the trial the law firm was able to persuade the jury that the defendant had made up the story of the coughing fit and the loss of consciousness only after the victim pursued a claim so as to avoid responsibility for the accident. As a result, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the female victim in the amount of $1.2 million.

Perhaps the employer really thought that the driver had been fit to drive a tractor-trailer and had simply suffered a medical emergency. Perhaps the driver persuaded himself that he had experienced yet another medical emergency. Or perhaps, for whatever reason, the driver thought that if he told the truth about how the accident took place he would lose his job. No one will ever know. In this case though the lawyer handling the matter had the experience and the common sense to see that something about that story of the accident just was not right. And a jury agreed.

It requires a certain amount of experience, common sense, resources, and skill to realize that something is not right with a defendant's story and to know how and where to look for the evidence that will rebut it. If the law firm helping the victim had accepted the story given by the defendant and the medical certificate provided by the driver's employer they would not have found the evidence that led to a $1.2 million jury award.

Pedestrian Recovers $1,200,000 When Defendant Claimed Medical Emergency Defense

By: J. Hernandez

POST COMMENT

Private Institutions "grab Medicine" Is The Test Of Time Even In The "medication" After Drugs In Public Hospitals In Liaoning Province Will Be The Collective Price Cuts Demand For Bulk Drugs Pharmaceutical Enterprise Performance Surge Of Warmer Vital Questions To Ask Before Choosing A Medical Spa Aarkstore Enterprise---ats Medical, Inc. (atsi) - Financial And Strategic Analysis Review Aarkstore Enterprise---inverness Medical Innovations, Inc. (ima) - Financial And Strategic Analysis Medical Billing Software What You Need To Know About Mold Remediation The Maryland Drug Treatment Centers Is There Anything I Can Do When The Prescription Drug Plavix Causes Me To Bruise Easily? Psoriasis Drugs Mold Remediation San Francisco: Freedom From Fungi Medical Hair Restoration Cost