Good Info
Translate Page To German Tranlate Page To Spanish Translate Page To French Translate Page To Italian Translate Page To Japanese Translate Page To Korean Translate Page To Portuguese Translate Page To Chinese
     
Categories

Accessories
Arts
Arts and Crafts
Automotive
Business
Business Management
Career
Cars and Trucks
CGI
Coding Sites
Computers
Computers and Technology
Cooking
Crafts
Current Affairs
Databases
Education
Entertainment
Film
Finances
Gardening
Healthy Living
Holidays
Home
Home Management
Internet
Medical
Medical Business
Medicines and Remedies
Men Only
Motorcyles
Our Pets
Outdoors
Pets
Psychiatry & Mental Heal
Recreation
Relationships
Religion
Self Improvement
Society
Sports
Staying Fit
Technology
Travel
Web Design
Weddings
Wellness, Fitness and Di
Women Only
Womens Interest
Writing
 
Stats
Total Articles: 811910
Total Authors: 79955


Newest Member
beta soft

What Happens When Drivers Put The blame For The Accident On The Victim


By: J. Hernandez
Submitted: 2010-10-16 21:56:10 | Word Count: 732


It is not uncommon for a lawyer to review a potential motor vehicle accident lawsuit in which the pedestrian who is harmed and would like to go forward with a case tells one version of the way the accident took place and the potential defendant in the case tells an entirely different version. Of course, in the defendant's account he or she is not at fault and is not liable for the accident. Attorneys realize that people from time to time remember incidents in keeping with their own self-image, an image of a person who is a conscientious driver, of a person who is not capable of causing an injury to another person. These lawyers also realize that when this happens sometimes all that's necessary to establish the truth is a little bit of common sense. Think about the example offered by the following:

The driver in this motor vehicle accident hit a 75 year old man as he was crossing the street so as to return to his car which was double parked. The driver was driving a van when the accident happened. He maintained that the victim came out abruptly 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 victim sustained multiple fractures such as fractures to his shoulder, collarbone and to his ankle for which he required surgery that consisted of the attachment of screws and a metal plate. The 75 year old man had been an active person prior to being injured. He was even employed as a messenger. Following the accident his lifestyle was no longer the same.

[ advertisement ]

The law firm that represented the pedestrian asked that the defense produce evidence of the damage to the side of the van claimed by the driver. No such evidence was ever offered by the defendant. The damage that plainly did happen to her van was a cracked windshield. Even with the inconsistency in the driver's version of the accident and the seriousness of the injuries to the victim the driver's insurance company refused to settle the pedestrian's claim. The law firm helping the pedestrian documented that it went forward to trial where it achieved a $475,000 verdict for the pedestrian.

The above displays how much defendants will try to avoid responsibility for an accident, regardless of whether they have plenty of insurance to cover them. From time to time they simply look at the facts from a point of view that absolves them of fault. At times they recall the accident differently from how it actually occurred. Sometimes they just plain lie.

To complicate things, insurance company adjusters seem all to ready to take their insured's version of the accident at face value and to completely discount the injured victim's version. Statistically, this reasonable from a business point of view especially when there are no witnesses. Refuse enough claims and some of them will settle for nuisance value. Of those that do not, if the defense wins even just half those cases at trial the insurance companies will save millions each year.

Deciding whether to get an accident reconstruction expert for a case is a matter of judgment. There are times when the use of an expert is absolutely essential and experience ought to direct the lawyer in figuring out when to use that expert. There are variables that can change 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 determine the way the accident really occurred and the value of the case merits the expense. If it is not necessary it might be better to let the jury sort through the evidence and see through the version told by the defendant.

Author Resource:- Joseph Hernandez is an Attorney accepting motor vehicle accident cases. To learn more about how a pedestrian accident attorney can help you and about other vehicle accident cases including fatal car accident matters visit the websites

HTML Ready Article. Click on the "Copy" button to copy into your clipboard.




Firefox users please select/copy/paste as usual
New Members
Nav Menu
Sponsors



Featured Authors
Name: Lorenzo Bouche
Joined: 2012-05-20
City: West Sussex
State: Surrey
View My Bio & Articles

Name: Joseph Batchelor
Joined: 2012-05-20
City: Chicago
State: IL
View My Bio & Articles

Name: Vision Services
Joined: 2012-05-20
City: Ahmedabad
State: Gujarat
View My Bio & Articles

Name: Tripti Sharma
Joined: 2012-05-20
City: Bangalore
State: West Bengal
View My Bio & Articles

Name: Brian Buck
Joined: 2012-05-20
City: Phoenix
State: AZ
View My Bio & Articles