Expert Aids Accident Victim Disprove Defendant's Account Of Accident

It is not rare for someone hurt in a motor vehicle accident to be faced with a defendant who denies liability. Frequently, these drivers in fact place responsibility with the plaintiff for the accident. Because a large number of vehicle accidents do not have any witnesses the outcome of such lawsuits could come down to the credibility of the victim as opposed to the credibility of the defendant. Not surprisingly when this goes on the adjuster for the insurance company insuring the defendant will frequently take the side of the defendant.

Lawyers seasoned in dealing with such cases, particularly in those that deal with significant injuries to the victim, understand that they really do carry the burden of demonstrating that the driver was responsible. Depending on a credibility battle is unlikely to result in a settlement and wagers on the outcome at trial. Despite the fact that it is not always economically feasible to work up a claim using experts, in cases where the damages are enough and there is sufficient insurance coverage or there are resources that could be used for a recovery, it may be proper to do so.

Consider the published case in which a truck struck a male messenger on a bicycle as the truck was turning right. The truck cut off the bicyclist. The front of the truck hit the bicyclist throwing him off the bicycle. The truck's front tire and rear tire both ran over the victim. The bicyclist sustained fractures to his pelvis and severe internal injuries. He was twenty two years old when the accident took place.

The driver maintained that he was not to blame for the accident. In what is an all too common defense position the defendant blamed the plaintiff for the accident. The truck driver maintained that he signaled before taking the turn. The defendant also maintained that the bicyclist entered the intersection without stopping for the stop sign, and further maintianed that he did not run over the plaintiff twice. The victim on the other hand, stated that the driver never used his turn signal and that the driver could not have been paying attention while making the turn.

The law firm that represented the plaintiff rebutted the defendant's version of the accident using the support of an accident reconstruction expert. By showing that the truck did in fact run over the victim twice the law firm established truck driver could not have been paying attention to traffic on his right as he made the turn. Consequently, the law firm reported that they were able to achieve a settlement in the amount of $400,000 for the plaintiff.

When insurance company adjusters align themselves with the defendent, often the best way to persuade them to reverse their view is to pesent them with independent evidence that rebuts the defendant's rendition of the accident. And, if the insurance company continue to follow their insured's version, then the case has been effectively prepared for trial. If only expert testimony might achieve that goal an experienced lawyer will weigh the cost of the expert versus the probability that the expert will be able to disprove the insured's claim and the forecast span of the amount a jury would give for the harm sustained by the plaintiff.