Getting To The Truth If A Defendant Is Placing The Blame On The Victim In A Car Crash Case
By: J. Hernandez
Submitted: 2010-12-06 17:36:33 | Word Count: 711
It is not unusual for a lawyer to evaluate a potential motor vehicle accident case in which the individual who is injured and wants to go forward with a case tells one story of the way the accident happened and the driver who would be the defendant in the lawsuit tells a completely contradictory version - always one in which he or she is blameless and has no liability for the accident. Attorneys understand that people from time to time recall situations in keeping with their own self-image, an image of an individual who is a mindful driver, of a person who is not able to be responsible for causing harm to others. It is up to the attorney who reviews the claim on behalf of the injured pedestrian to figure out what evidence, if any, is available that they can use to invalidate the version of the incident recounted by the would-be defendant.
In this case a seventy five year old male pedestrian was struck while crossing the street to return to his double-parked car. The driver was driving a van when the accident happened. He claimed that the man came out abruptly from the middle of two cars that were parked at the side of the road and that the man actually ran into the car causing damage to the its side. The pedestrian sustained several 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 seventy five year old victim had been an active person before being injured. He was even employed as a messenger. After the accident his lifestyle was no longer the same.
[ advertisement ]
The defendant would not offer any evidence of the damage he maintained the victim caused to the side of her van. The only damage that was noted was a cracked windshield - consistent with the front of the van striking the pedestrian and inconsistent with the pedestrian hitting the side of the van. But, the defendant's insurance company turned down the opportunity to settle the case. The law firm that handled this claim took it to trial and got a verdict of $475,000 for the victim.
The above displays how much defendants will attempt to avoid blame for an accident, regardless of whether they have enough insurance to cover them. Sometimes they simply look at the facts from a perspective that clears them of fault. At times they remember the accident differently from how it actually took place. 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. In general, this makes sense particularly if there are no witnesses. Deny enough claims and some of them will settle for nuisance value. Of those that do not, if the defense wins even just half those claims 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. For some cases, it is completely crucial like when the lack of an expert would make it impossible for the jury to understand how the accident occurred. There are factors that can alter 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 needed if without the testimony of one the jury would not be able to determine the way the accident actually happened and the worth of the case merits the expense. When it is not necessary it may be better to let the jury go through the evidence and see through the story told by the defendant.
Author Resource:-
Joseph Hernandez is an Attorney accepting motor vehicle accident cases. To learn more about how a pedestrian accident lawyer can help you and about other vehicle accident cases including fatal car accident matters visit the websites
