subject: Hurt Victims Frequently Realize They Are Blamed For The Accident By The Defendant [print this page] Hurt Victims Frequently Realize They Are Blamed For The Accident By The Defendant
Accidents occur. That is also true for accidents in which a motor vehicle hits a pedestrian. Lawyers skilled in dealing with pedestrian injury lawsuits are knowledgeable about not only the technical factors of the accident, the insurance issues, and the medical issues with the injuries to the pedestrian, but also the psychology of the people involved. This occurs even when the would-be defendant has insurance that would fully cover the range of any possible recovery. Thus the motive is never clear. It is up to the attorney who assesses the lawsuit for the injured person to establish what evidence, is available that they can use to rebut the version of the accident given by the would-be 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 driver was driving a van at the time of the accident. He maintained that the pedestrian 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 leading to damage to the its side. The pedestrian suffered several fractures such as fractures to his shoulder, collarbone and to his ankle for which he needed surgery that consisted of the insertion of screws and a metal plate. The seventy five year old man had been an active man before being injured. He was even employed as a messenger. After the accident his lifestyle was no longer the same.
The defendant would not show any evidence of the damage he maintained the victim caused to the side of her van. 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 defendant's insurance company turned down the opportunity to settle the case. The law firm helping the pedestrian reported that it went forward to trial where it attained a $475,000 verdict for the pedestrian.
The above displays how hard defendants will try to avoid blame for an accident, even when they have plenty of insurance to cover them. Sometimes they simply look at the facts from a viewpoint that absolves them of fault. At times they recall the accident in a different way from how it actually happened. Sometimes they lie.
Unfortunately, there are occassions when the claims adjuster for the driver's insurance company adopts the driver's version even after being confronted with a clear showing of reponsibility of the part of the defendant. When this happens there is usually little choice but to take the case to trial.
Choosing whether to retain an accident reconstruction expert for a case is a matter of judgment. For some circumstances, it is completely crucial such as when not using an expert would make it extremely difficult for the jury to figure out how the accident happened. For many matters it is best to not underestimate the jury. Juries are typically very smart and have excellent common sense. Present the evidence to them in a manner that helps them connect it to their own experience and they will cut through the driver's version.
