Hurt Victims Often Find Themselves Held Responsible For The Accident By The Defendant

It is not out of the ordinary for an attorney to review a possible motor vehicle accident case in which the person who is hurt and wants to pursue a lawsuit tells one account of the way the accident happened and the driver who would be the defendant tells a completely contradictory account. Of course, in the defendant's version he or she is not at fault and has no liability for the accident. This happens regardless of whether the individual has insurance that would adequately cover the range of any possible recovery. So the motive is never clear. These lawyers also recognize that when this happens sometimes all you need to bring out the truth is some common sense. Consider the example provided by the following: The driver in this motor vehicle accident hit a 75 year old man as he was crossing the street in order to go back to his car which was double parked. As per the victim he was crossing the street in the middle of the block. According to the defendant the victim all of a sudden came out from between two parked vehicles and actually ran into the side of the van. He suffered a fracture to his shoulder, a fracture to his collarbone, and a fracture to his ankle. He required screws and a metal plate inserted into his ankle. An active person before the accident his life changed significantly after. The defendant refused to produce any evidence of the damage he claimed the victim caused to the side of her van. The only damage that was documented 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 refused to settle the case. The law firm that handled this claim took it to trial and obtained a verdict of $475,000 for the victim. As the above illustrates drivers will sometimes construct versions of the accident that seem to justify their action at the time and put blame on the victim. A bit of common sense is often all one needs to show that the accident either could not have happened according to the driver’s version or that even if it did that version does not absolve the driver of accountability for what happened. To complicate things, insurance company adjusters seem all to set to take their insured’s version of the accident at face value and to completely discount the injured victim’s account of the accident. In general, 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 lawsuits at trial the insurance companies will save millions each year. Choosing whether to retain an accident reconstruction expert for a case is a matter of judgment. There are times when the use of an expert is really essential but experience ought to direct the lawyer in figuring out when to use that expert. There are factors 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 required if without the testimony of one the jury would not be able to understand the way the accident really occurred and the worth of the case merits the expense. If it is not necessary it might be better to let the jury go through the evidence and see through the story given by the defendant.