subject: Two Examples Of Cases In Which Drivers Tried To Blame The Pedestrian For The Accident [print this page] Accidents happenAccidents happen. That is also true for accidents involving motor vehicles and pedestrians. Attorneys experienced in handling pedestrian injury cases are adept at understanding not only the mechanics of the accident, the insurance issues, and the medical aspects of the injuries to the pedestrian, but also the psychology of the individuals involved. They understand that people sometimes remember events as consistent with their own self-image, an image of someone who is a careful driver, of someone who is not capable of causing harm to someone else. They also realize that when this happens sometimes all you need to bring out the truth is a little bit of common sense. Consider the example provided by the following two cases:
Case 1:
In this case a 75 year old male pedestrian was hit while crossing the street to get back to his double-parked car. The victim suffered multiple fractures including fractures to his shoulder, collarbone and to his ankle for which he required surgery that consisted of the insertion of screws and a metal plate. The 75 year old victim had been an active man prior to the accident. He was even working as a messenger. Following the accident his lifestyle changed dramatically. According to the victim he was crossing the street in the middle of the block. According to the defendant the victim suddenly came out from between two parked vehicles and literally ran into the side of the van.
The driver refused to produce any evidence of the damage he claimed the victim caused to the side of her van. The damage that clearly did take place to her van was a cracked windshield. Despite the inconsistency in the driver's version of the accident and the severity of the injuries to the victim the driver's insurance company refused to settle the pedestrian's claim. The law firm that handled this case took it to trial and obtained a verdict of $475,000 on behalf of the victim.
Case 2:
In this case the victim was a 71 year old female pedestrian hit by a van. She suffered a fracture to the right occipital bone. She also suffered fractures to her right knee and need an open reduction with internal fixation. Further, she suffered a subdural hematoma. She was half-way through a crosswalk that was controlled by a traffic light when she was struck. The vehicle that hit her had been stopped for a red light prior to entering the intersection. The victim claimed she entered the crosswalk with a steady go signal which turned to a flashing red light after she was in the crosswalk. The driver claimed that he did not enter the intersection until the light turned green for him and even produced two witnesses to state that the light was green for the driver when the accident occurred.
The law firm that represented the pedestrian did not need to rebut the witnesses produced by the driver. All they had to do was to convince the driver's insurance company adjuster that the driver was at fault even if his claim that the light had turned green before he drove into the crosswalk were true they faced a significant risk of an adverse verdict at trial. The driver was in effect claiming that as long as he had a green light he had the right to not pay attention to the road in front of him and had the right to hit a pedestrian in his way rather than waiting for the pedestrian to finish crossing the crosswalk before proceeding. The law firm reported that the insurance company settled for $300,000, the full limit of the van's insurance coverage.
An analysis of the two cases:
The cases above are just two examples of how hard defendants will try to avoid responsibility for an accident, even when they have sufficient insurance to cover them. Sometimes they simply view the facts from a perspective that clears them of fault. Sometimes they remember the accident different from how it actually happened. Sometimes they just plain lie.
To make matters worse, insurance company adjusters seem all to ready to take their insured's version of the accident at face value and to totally discount the injured victim's version. Statistically, this makes sense especially when there are no witnesses. Deny enough claims and some of them will settle for nuisance value. Of those that do not, if the defense wins half those cases at trial the insurance companies will save millions each year.
Deciding whether to retain an accident reconstruction expert for a case is a matter of judgment. For some cases, it is absolutely necessary such as when the lack of an expert would make it impossible for the jury to understand how the accident occurred. There are factors that can make a difference in the way motor vehicles move that cannot be taken into account merely using the average person's experience and common sense. An accident reconstruction expert is necessary if without the testimony of one the jury would not be able to understand how the accident actually happened and the value of the case merits the expense. When it is not necessary it may be better to let the jury go through the evidence and see through the story told by the defendant.
