subject: Expert Aids Accident Victim Disprove Defendant's Version Of Accident [print this page] Expert Aids Accident Victim Disprove Defendant's Version Of Accident
It is not unusual for a person hurt in a motor vehicle accident to be confronted with a defendant who denies responsibility. Often, these defendants actually blame the plaintiff for the accident. Since a large number of motor vehicle accidents do not have any witnesses the outcome of these kinds of cases could come down to the credibility of the plaintiff versus the credibility of the driver. Not surprisingly if this goes on the insurance company covering the driver will frequently take the side of their insured.
Attorneys experienced in litigating such matters, particularly when the case involves serious injuries to the victim, realize that they really do bear the load of showing that the driver was at fault. Depending on a credibility battle is not likely to lead to a settlement and gambles on the outcome at trial. Even though the economics of a case do not always justify using experts, if the damages are enough and there is plenty of insurance coverage or there are assets that could be applied toward a recovery, it might be appropriate to do so.
Consider the published case which arose when a truck made a right hand turn as a bicycle messenger was trying to pass it on the right. The truck cut off the bicyclist. 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 suffered fractures to his pelvis and significant internal injuries. The bicyclist was 22 years old when the accident took place.
The driver maintained that he was not to blame for the accident. In what is an all too common defense position the driver ascribed responsibility to the victim for the accident. The defendant maintained that he had his signal on before taking the turn. The defendant also claimed that the plaintiff ran a stop sign, and further maintianed that he did not run over the victim twice. 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 while making the turn.
The law firm that handled this lawsuit rebutted the truck driver's account of how the accident happened aided by the support of an accident reconstruction expert. In showing 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 as he took the turn. Consequently, the law firm published that the matter settled in the amount of $400,000.
Should insurance company adjusters align themselves with the defendent, generally the best way to persuade them to reverse their view is to develop independent evidence that invalidates the driver's rendition of the accident. And, if the adjusters continue to go by their insured's version, then the claim has been properly prepared for trial. When only expert testimony might accomplish that goal an experienced lawyer will consider the cost of bringing in an expert versus the probability that the expert will rebut the driver's claim and the predicted range of how much a jury would award for the harm sustained by the plaintiff.
