subject: Expert Key To Reaching $400,000 Settlement With Defendant Who Denied Responsibility For Accident [print this page] It is not uncommon for an individual injured in a motor vehicle accident to be faced with a driver who denies fault. Sometimes, these defendants in fact place responsibility with the victim for the accident. As many vehicle accidents are not witnessed by witnesses the outcome of such lawsuits may depend on the credibility of the plaintiff as opposed to the credibility of the defendant. Attorneys who represent plaintiffs find that when this goes on the adjuster for the insurance company insuring the driver will often align themselves with the defendant.
Attorneys experienced in dealing with such matters, especially in those that deal with severe injuries to the victim, recognize that they really do bear the burden of showing that the defendant was at fault. Depending on a credibility battle is not likely to lead to a settlement and wagers on the outcome at trial. While the economics of a case do not always justify using experts, when the damages are enough and there is plenty of insurance coverage or there are resources that could be used for a recovery, it might be proper to do so.
Examine the reported case in which a truck took a right hand turn as a bicycle messenger was trying to pass it on the right. The bicyclist's path was blocked by the truck. The front of the truck struck the bicyclist who was knocked down and was run over first by the truck's front tire and then by the truck's rear tire. The plaintiff sustained fractures to his pelvis and suffered serious internal injuries. The bicyclist was 22 years old at the time of the accident.
The defendant maintained that he was not at fault for the accident. As so often happens, the defense took the position that the bicyclist was the one who was to blame for the accident. The defendant maintained that he had his signal on prior to taking the turn, maintained that the bicyclist ran a stop sign, and denied twice running over the plaintiff. The plaintiff on the other hand, stated that the truck driver never used his turn signal and that the driver could not have been paying attention when he made the turn.
The law firm that represented the victim rebutted the defendant's account of who was responsible for causing the accident with the support of an accident reconstruction expert. By demonstrating that the truck did actually run over the victim twice the law firm was able to show that the truck driver could not have been paying attention to traffic on his right when he made the turn. Due to this, the law firm reported that they were able to obtain a settlement for $400,000 on behalf of the victim.
When insurance company adjusters side with the defendant, generally the best way to persuade them to alter their position is to put together independent evidence that rebuts the driver's version of the accident. And, if the adjusters continue to go by their insured's version, then the claim has been properly prepared for trial. If an expert is critical to achieve that goal an experienced attorney will weigh the cost of bringing in an expert versus the probability that the expert will be able to rebut the defendant's position and the predicted span of the amount a jury would award for the plaintiff's injuries.
