What Happens When Drivers Attribute The blame For The Accident On The Victim
By: J. Hernandez
Submitted: 2010-07-03 19:02:32 | Word Count: 634
Accidents happen. That is also true for accidents involving motor vehicles and pedestrians. Lawyers experienced in taking on pedestrian injury cases are adept at understanding not only the technical factors of the accident, the insurance issues, and the medical aspects of the injuries to the pedestrian, along with the psychology of the individuals involved. This occurs even when the person has insurance that would fully cover the range the settlement or verdict is likely to fall in. Consequently the motive is never really clear. It is up to the lawyer who evaluates the case on behalf of the hurt pedestrian to determine what evidence, if any, exists that they can use to rebut the version of the incident given by the potential defendant.
In this accident a 75 year old male pedestrian was hit while going across the street to return to his double-parked car. The driver was driving a van when the accident happened. He maintained that the pedestrian came out abruptly from the middle of two cars that were parked at the side of the road and that the man in fact ran into the car leading to damage to the its side. The man suffered several fractures such as 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 man had been an active man prior to the accident. He was even employed as a messenger. After the accident his lifestyle was no longer the same.
[ advertisement ]
The law firm that represented the pedestrian requested that the defense produce evidence of the damage to the side of the van professed by the driver. No such evidence was ever provided by the defendant. The damage that clearly did happen to her van was a cracked windshield. Even with the inconsistency in the driver's version of the accident and the severity of the injuries to the victim the driver's insurance company declined to settle the pedestrian's claim. The law firm that handled this case took it to trial and got a verdict of $475,000 for the victim.
As the above illustrates drivers will sometimes create versions of the accident that seem to justify their action at the time and set fault on the victim. Some common sense is generally all one needs to show that the accident either could not have happened based on the driver's version or that even if it did that version does not absolve the driver of accountability for what happened.
Regrettably, there are occassions when the claims adjuster for the driver's insurance company accepts the driver's version even after being confronted with a clear showing of reponsibility of the part of the insured. When this happens there is usually little choice but to take the case to trial.
In these cases it is frequently feasible to determine whether there is a need to use an accident reconstruction expert. There are times when the use of an expert is absolutely essential and experience should guide the attorney in figuring out whenever to use that expert. For many matters it is best to not underestimate the jury. Juries are generally very smart and have excellent common sense. Offer the evidence to them in a way that helps them relate it to their own experience and they will cut through the driver's version.
Author Resource:-
Joseph Hernandez is an Attorney accepting pedestrian accident cases. To learn more about how a pedestrian accident attorney can help you and about other vehicle accident cases including bicycle accident matters visit the websites
