subject: What Happens When Drivers Attribute Fault For The Accident On The Plaintiff [print this page] It is not out of the ordinary for an attorney to review a possible motor vehicle accident claim in which the individual who is injured and would like to go forward with a claim tells one story of how the accident took place and the driver who would be the defendant tells a completely contradictory account. Of course, in the defendant's account he or she is blameless and is not liable for the accident. Lawyers recognize that individuals from time to time recall incidents as consistent with their own self-image, an image of an individual who is a careful driver, of someone not able to be responsible for causing harm to someone else. It is up to the attorney who reviews the lawsuit for the injured pedestrian to establish what evidence, if any, is available that they can use to invalidate the story of the incident recounted by the potential defendant.
In this accident a 75 year old male pedestrian was hit while crossing the street to get back to his double-parked car. As per the victim he was crossing the street in the middle of the block. As per the defendant the pedestrian abruptly came out from between two parked vehicles and basically ran into the side of the van. He sustained a fracture to his shoulder, a fracture to his collarbone, and a fracture to his ankle. He required screws and a metal plate inserted into his ankle. An energetic person before the accident his life changed significantly after.
The driver refused to offer any evidence of the damage he professed the victim caused to the side of her van. The sole damage that was documented was a cracked windshield - as would be expected from the front of the van striking the pedestrian and inconsistent with the pedestrian hitting the side of the van. But, the defendants insurance company turned down the opportunity to settle the case. The law firm that handled this lawsuit took it to trial and attained a verdict of $475,000 for the victim.
As the above shows defendants will sometimes create versions of the accident that seem to vindicate their action at the time and place blame on the victim. Some common sense is usually all one needs to demonstrate that the accident either could not have taken place based on the drivers version or that even if it did that version does not absolve the driver of responsibility for what took place.
To make matters worse, insurance company adjusters appear all to ready to take their insureds version of the accident at face value and to fully discount the injured victims account of the accident. In general, this makes sense especially if there are no witnesses. Deny a large number of claims and some of them will settle for nuisance value. Of those that do not, if the defense wins even just half those lawsuits at trial the insurance companies will save millions each year.
Deciding whether to retain an accident reconstruction expert for a claim is a matter of judgment. There are times when the use of an expert is absolutely vital but experience should guide the lawyer in figuring out whenever to use that expert. For many situations it is best to not underestimate the jury. Juries are generally very wise and have good common sense. Offer the evidence to them in a manner that helps them connect it to their own experience and they will cut through the drivers version.
