subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Attorney Techniques Used To Disprove Driver's False Account Of The Accident [print this page] It is not unusual for an attorney to evaluate a potential motor vehicle accident lawsuit in which the person who is injured and would like to pursue a case tells one story of the way the accident came about and the driver who might be the defendant in the case tells a totally contradictory version - always one in which he or she is not responsible and is not liable for the accident. Lawyers know that people on occasion recall situations as consistent with their own self-image, an image of an individual who is a careful driver, of someone who is not capable of causing harm to others. It is up to the attorney who evaluates the lawsuit on behalf of the injured individual to identify what evidence, is available to invalidate the version of the accident told by the would-be defendant.
The driver in this motor vehicle accident hit a 75 year old man as he was crossing the street in order to go back to his car which was double parked. As per the victim he was going across the street in the middle of the block. According to the driver the victim suddenly came out from between two parked vehicles and literally ran into the side of the van. He suffered a fracture to his shoulder, a fracture to his collarbone, and a fracture to his ankle. He required screws and a metal plate inserted into his ankle. An active person prior to the accident his life changed greatly after.
The law firm that represented the pedestrian asked that the defense produce evidence of the damage to the side of the van claimed by the driver. No such evidence was ever supplied by the defendant. The sole damage that was noted was a cracked windshield - consistent with the front of the van striking the pedestrian and inconsistent with the pedestrian hitting the side of the van. Still, the defendants insurance company turned down the opportunity to settle the case. The law firm that handled this case took it to trial and got a verdict of $475,000 on behalf of the victim.
The above displays how hard defendants will try to avoid blame for an accident, regardless of whether they have enough insurance to cover them. From time to time they simply look at the facts from a point of view that absolves them of fault. Sometimes they remember the accident in a different way from how it really took place. Sometimes they just plain lie.
To make matters worse, insurance company adjusters seem all to willing to take their insureds version of the accident at face value and to completely discount the injured victims version. In general, this reasonable from a business point of view especially if there are no witnesses. Refuse enough claims and some of them will settle for nuisance value. Of those that do not, if the defense wins half those claims at trial the insurance companies will save millions each year.
In these circumstances it is often possible to determine if there is a need to use an accident reconstruction expert. For some cases, it is absolutely necessary like if the lack of an expert would make it impossible for the jury to figure out how the accident happened. For many situations it is advisable to not underestimate the jury. Juries are usually very sophisticated and have excellent common sense. Offer the evidence to them in a manner that helps them relate it to their own experience and they will cut through the drivers version.
