subject: Expert Helps Plaintiff Disprove Driver's Version Of Accident [print this page] It is not rare for an individual hurt in a motor vehicle accident to be confronted with a defendant who denies responsibility. Often, these defendants basically blame the plaintiff for the accident. As a large number of vehicle accidents are not observed by bystanders the outcome of such claims could come down to the credibility of the plaintiff versus the credibility of the defendant. Not surprisingly if this occurs the insurance company covering the defendant will frequently align themselves with their insured.
Attorneys seasoned in handling such claims, especially when the case involves significant injuries to the plaintiff, understand that they really do bear the load of proving that the defendant was responsible. Counting on a credibility battle is unlikely to result in a settlement and leaves the outcome of a trial up in the air. Despite the fact that it is not always economically viable to work up a case using experts, when the damages are enough and there is plenty of insurance coverage or there are assets that could be used for a compensation of the victims, it may be appropriate to do so.
Look at the published lawsuit in which a truck made a right hand turn at the same time a bicycle messenger was attempting to pass it on the right. The bicyclist's path was cut off by the truck. 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 plaintiff sustained pelvic fractures and severe internal injuries. The bicyclist was 22 years old when the accident took place.
The defendant maintained that he was not responsible for the accident. In what is an all too common defense position the driver ascribed responsibility to the plaintiff for the accident. As per the truck driver, he had his signal on before taking the turn, claimed that the bicyclist entered the intersection without stopping for the stop sign, and denied twice running over the bicyclist. The victim on the other hand, stated that the defendant did not have his turn signal on and that the defendant could not have been paying attention when he made the turn.
The law firm that handled this case rebutted the defendant's version of who was to blame for causing the accident with the assistance of an accident reconstruction expert. By demonstrating that the truck did actually run over the bicyclist twice the law firm established defendant could not have been paying attention to traffic on his right when he took the turn. Due to this, the law firm published that they were able to obtain a settlement for $400,000 for the plaintiff.
When insurance company adjusters align themselves with the insured driver, generally the most effective way to persuade them to change their position is to pesent them with independent evidence that rebuts their insureds version of the accident. Then, if the insurance company continue to follow their insured's version, then the claim has been fully prepared for trial. If an expert is essential to accomplish that goal an experienced lawyer will consider the cost of the expert versus the likelihood that the expert will be able to invalidate the insured's claim and the forecast span of the amount a jury would give for the harm sustained by the victim.
