subject: Driver's Claim That Plaintiff Caused Accident Refutted By Expert [print this page] It is not uncommon for an individual hurt in a vehicle accident to be presented with a defendant who denies fault. Often, these drivers in fact place responsibility with the plaintiff for the accident. Since many motor vehicle accidents occur without any witnesses the outcome of these kinds of lawsuits may depend on the credibility of the plaintiff versus the credibility of the driver. Attorneys who represent victims find that when this occurs the adjuster for the insurance company covering the defendant will frequently take the side of their insured.
Attorneys experienced in handling such cases, particularly when the case involves serious injuries to the plaintiff, realize that they really do carry the burden of proving that the driver was at fault. Relying on a credibility battle is unlikely to result in a settlement and gambles on the outcome at trial. Despite the fact that the economics of a case do not always justify using experts, in cases where the damages are enough and there is plenty of insurance coverage or there are assets that could be applied toward a compensation of the victims, it might be proper to do so.
Look at the reported lawsuit in which a truck hit a male messenger on a bicycle as the truck was turning right. The bicyclist's path was cut off by the truck. The front of the truck hit 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 suffered serious internal injuries. The plaintiff was twenty two years old when the accident took place.
The driver claimed that he was not at fault for the accident. As so often happens, the defense claimed that the bicyclist was the one who was to blame for the accident. According to the truck driver, he signaled before making the turn, maintained that the bicyclist 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 driver never used his turn signal and that the defendant could not have been paying attention while making the turn.
The law firm that handled this lawsuit rebutted the defendant's version of who was to blame for causing the accident aided by the assistance of an accident reconstruction expert. By demonstrating that the truck did in fact run over the plaintiff twice the law firm established defendant must not have been paying attention to traffic on his right as he made the turn. As a result, the law firm documented that the case settled for $400,000.
If insurance company adjusters side with the insured driver, normally the most effective way to persuade them to reverse their position is to pesent them with independent evidence that invalidates their insured's rendition of the accident. Plus, if the adjusters still do not change their position, then the claim has been fully prepared for trial. If only expert testimony might achieve that goal an experienced lawyer will consider the cost of bringing in an expert versus the likelihood that the expert will be able to rebut the insured's claim and the probable range of the amount a jury would award for the victim's damages.
Driver's Claim That Plaintiff Caused Accident Refutted By Expert
