It is not uncommon for attorneys who handle motor vehicle accidents to run into a case where the two drivers involved give radically different versions of the accident. Experience and the willingness to fully investigate the circumstances of the accident, including personally viewing the scene of the accident, can make all the difference between a successful outcome and a loss.
As an example, consider the following case: a car going straight and a 24 foot box truck making a left turn collide in an intersection. The driver of the car, who was badly injured in the accident, contended that he had a yellow light when he entered the intersection. He admitted to speeding up to make the light. Given the lights at the intersection, if the victim's light had been green then the truck driver must have made a turn against a red left turn arrow. The driver of the truck, however, claimed that the driver of the car had been speeding and ran a red light when he entered the intersection.
This case involved serious injuries to the victim. The victim was 40 years old at the time of the accident. He sustained multiple fractures to his left forearm that required internal fixation surgery. He also suffered a head laceration that required about 20 staples to close. The law firm that handled the case did the right thing and conducted its own thorough investigation of the accident. By becoming familiar with the scene of the accident they were able to determine that even if the victim had run a red light when entering the intersection the sequence of the lights was such that the next green light would have been for traffic coming from the truck's left
and the truck would have still had a stead red left turn arrow.
The law firm thus secured the testimony of a representative of the Department of Transportation verifying the exact sequencing and timing of the traffic lights at the intersection where the accident occurred. Combining this with the testimony of a witness who was waiting at a red light to exit the facility that his light was still red when the accident happened, they proved that the truck ran a red left turn arrow.
The law firm took the case to trial. Even though the jury found that the victim was 15% at fault for the accident, they apportioned 85% of the fault on the driver of the truck. Given the percentage of fault allocation by the jury the law firm achieved a recovery of $467,000 on behalf of the victim. The day before trial the insurance company refused to settle for a demand of $300,000.
This case illustrates the importance of knowing the scene of the accident, knowing what type of evidence can be used to show the falsity of the defendant's version of the accident, and the resources that can be uncovered to gather that evidence. The details make all the difference in cases such as these.
The case also illustrates how, even given irrefutable evidence that the driver of the truck went through a red left turn arrow and given the nature and extent of the victim's injuries, the insurance company refused to settle the case for what turned out to have been a very reasonable demand. This happens much more frequently than most people realize. Attorneys handling these cases must be prepared to take the case to trial in order to obtain an appropriate recovery for the victim.
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://cdnimages.articlefriendly.net/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites
