subject: Hurt Victims Frequently Realize They Are Blamed For The Accident By The Driver [print this page] It is not out of the ordinary for a lawyer to assess a potential motor vehicle accident case in which the individual who is hurt and wishes to go forward with a claim tells one account of the way the accident came about and the potential defendant tells a totally different account. Of course, in the defendant's account he or she is blameless and has no liability for the accident. Attorneys realize that individuals sometimes recollect situations as consistent with their own self-image, an image of an individual who is a careful driver, of a person who is not able to be responsible for causing harm to others. It is up to the attorney who evaluates the case for the injured person to establish what evidence, if any, exists that they can use to disprove the version of the accident recounted by the potential defendant.
The driver in this motor vehicle accident hit a 75 year old man as he was crossing the street so as to go back to his car which was double parked. The potential defendant was driving a van when the accident happened. He maintained that the man came out suddenly from the middle of two cars that were parked at the side of the street and that the man in fact ran into the car causing damage to the its side. He sustained a fracture to his shoulder, a fracture to his collarbone, and a fracture to his ankle. He needed screws and a metal plate inserted into his ankle. An energetic person prior to the accident his life changed greatly after.
The defendant would not show any evidence of the damage he claimed the victim caused to the side of her van. The sole damage that was documented was a cracked windshield - as would be expected from the front of the van striking the pedestrian and inconsistent with the pedestrian hitting the side of the van. But, the defendants insurance company refused to settle the case. The law firm that handled this claim took it to trial and attained a verdict of $475,000 on behalf of the victim.
The above displays how hard defendants will try to avoid responsibility 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 clears them of fault. At times they remember the accident in a different way from how it really took place. Sometimes they just plain lie.
To complicate things, insurance company adjusters seem all to set to take their insureds version of the accident at face value and to fully discount the injured victims account of the accident. Statistically, this reasonable from a business point of view especially if there are no witnesses. Refuse a large number of 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.
Determining whether to use an accident reconstruction expert for a claim is a matter of judgment. For some situations, it is absolutely necessary for example if the lack of an expert would make it impossible for the jury to comprehend how the accident occurred. For many cases it is advisable to not underestimate the jury. Juries are usually very sophisticated and have good common sense. Offer the evidence to them in a way that helps them connect it to their own experience and they will cut through the drivers version.
