What Happens When Defendants Place Fault For The Accident On The Victim

It is not unusual for an attorney to assess a potential motor vehicle accident claim in which the individual who is harmed and wishes to pursue a lawsuit tells one story of how the accident happened and the potential defendant in the lawsuit tells an entirely different account - always one in which he or she is blameless and is not liable 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 really clear. It is up to the attorney who assesses the claim on behalf of the hurt person to determine what evidence, exists to invalidate the story of the accident recounted by the would-be defendant.

The driver in this motor vehicle accident hit a 75 year old man as he was crossing the street to return to his car which was double parked. The potential defendant 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 in fact 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 needed surgery that consisted of the attachment of screws and a metal plate. The seventy five year old man had been an active man before being injured. He was even employed as a messenger. Following the accident his lifestyle was no longer the same.

The law firm that represented the pedestrian requested that the defense produce evidence of the damage to the side of the van claimed by the driver. No such evidence was ever provided by the defendant. The damage that clearly did take place to her van was a cracked windshield. In spite of the inconsistency in the driver’s version of the accident and the severity of the injuries to the pedestrian the driver’s insurance company declined to settle the pedestrian’s claim. The law firm helping the pedestrian reported that it went forward to trial where it attained a $475,000 verdict for the pedestrian.

The above displays how much defendants will try to avoid liability for an accident, even when they have sufficient insurance to cover them. Sometimes they simply view the facts from a point of view that clears them of fault. At times they recall the accident differently from how it really took place. Sometimes they just plain lie.

Regrettably, there are times when the claims adjuster for the driver’s insurance company adopts their insured's version despite being confronted with a clear demonstration of reponsibility of the part of the defendant. When this takes place there is usually little choice but to take the case to trial.

Deciding whether to retain an accident reconstruction expert for a claim is a matter of judgment. Sometimes the use of an expert is absolutely essential and experience ought to help the attorney in determining when to use that expert. There are variables 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 required if without the testimony of one the jury would not be able to understand how the accident really happened and the worth of the case merits the expense. When it is not necessary it might be better to let the jury go through the evidence and see through the version told by the defendant.