Defendant Slams Into Pedestrian Then Blames The Victim For The Accident
By: J. Hernandez
Submitted: 2010-11-16 20:11:10 | Word Count: 635
It is simply remarkable how in which people can try to absolve themselves of liability in cases even though they are plainly at fault for having caused an accident.
Consider the reported lawsuit in which a seventy one year old woman was struck in a a motor vehicle accident. The woman was a pedestrian. She who was hit by a van. As a result of the accident she suffered a fracture of the bone which is located in the lower back portion of the skull. She additionally suffered fractures to her right knee. This injury required an open reduction with internal fixation. The trauma from the impact also triggered a collection of blood in the brain. The woman was half-way through a crosswalk that was controlled by a traffic light when she was struck. The van that hit her had been stopped for a red light prior to entering the intersection. The plaintiff maintained that as she started crossing the crosswalk the traffic control signal was steady and turned to a flashing red light during the time she was in the crosswalk and was struck by the van.
[ advertisement ]
The defendant claimed that he only drove the intersection after the light turned green for him. The driver even produced 2 bystanders who said that the light was green for the driver when the accident occurred. Many people, even some lawyers, might look at this as the type of case that would almost certainly result in a defense verdict. Hence, many lawyers would decline to represent the victim in such a lawsuit. The bulk of the evidence appears to go against the victim. Or is it?
One law firm did handle this matter. The strategy they took with the case was to argue that despite whether the defendant had a green light or not, the plaintiff was already in the middle of the crosswalk and so had the right of way when the driver drove into the crosswalk. He should have been focused on the woman in front of him instead of the traffic light to his left. With this argument the law firm published that it was able to obtain a settlement a little bit prior to trial for $300,000, the entire amount of the van's insurance policy.
In this personal injury matter the driver and the insurance company blamed the plaintiff for the accident. Essentially they claimed that, irrespective of whether there was a person already in the crosswalk, as soon as the light went green the driver and not the victim in the crosswalk, had the right of way. They essentially took the position that, if a person is too slow in crossing the street, drivers have no liability for running into them.
The case settled before trial. But, as reported by the law firm that handled the lawsuit, it settled only briefly prior to trial. Lawyers who help injured pedestrians with lawsuits where the defendants take this sort of posture must put together the claim as if they will have to take it to trial. It is sometimes the only thing that will lead the defendants to finally settle the lawsuit. In practice this means not letting the defendants position the case. In practice one way this may be accomplished is by understanding the impact, or consequence, of the argument made by the defendants and showing how such a position would actually go against public policy. Doing this may turn a loser into a winner.
Author Resource:-
Joseph Hernandez is an Attorney accepting pedestrian accident cases. To learn more about pedestrian accident cases and about other vehicle accident cases including fatal car accident matters visit the websites
