It is not uncommon for an individual injured in a motor vehicle accident to be confronted with a driver who denies liability. Often, these drivers actually blame the victim for the accident. Since many motor vehicle accidents are not witnessed by bystanders such cases could come down to the credibility of the victim versus the credibility of the driver. Not surprisingly when this happens the adjuster for the insurance company covering the driver will often take the side of their insured.
Attorneys experienced in handling such cases, especially when the case involves serious injuries to the victim, understand that they really do bear the burden of proving that the driver was at fault. Relying on a credibility battle is unlikely to lead to a settlement and gambles on the outcome at trial. While it is not always economically feasible to work up a case using experts, if the damages are sufficient and there is enough insurance coverage or there are assets that could be applied toward a recovery, it may be appropriate to do so.
Consider the reported case in which a truck made a right hand turn while a bicycle messenger was attempting to pass it on the right. The truck cut off the bicyclist. The front of the truck hit the bicyclist who was knocked down and was run over first by the truck's front tire and then by the truck's rear tire. The victim bicyclist suffered fractures to his pelvis and suffered serious internal injuries. He was 22 years old at the time of the accident.
The driver claimed that he was not
at fault for the accident. In what is an all too common defense position the driver blamed the victim for the accident. According to the truck driver, he signaled prior to taking the turn, claimed that the bicyclist ran a stop sign, and denied twice running over the driver. The victim was clear that the truck driver never used his turn signal and that the driver could not have been paying attention when he made the turn.
The law firm that handled this case rebutted the truck driver's version of the accident with the assistance of an accident reconstruction expert. By demonstrating that the truck did in fact run over the bicyclist twice the law firm was able to show that the truck driver could not have been paying attention to traffic on his right when he made the turn. As a result, the law firm reported that they were able to achieve a settlement in the amount of $400,000 on behalf of the bicyclist.
When insurance company adjusters side with the insured driver generally the best way to persuade them to reverse their position is to develop independent evidence that rebuts their insured's version of the accident. And, if the adjusters still do not reverse their position, then the case has been effectively prepared for trial. When only expert testimony might achieve that goal an experienced attorney will weigh the cost of bringing in an expert against the likelihood that the expert will be able to rebut the driver's claim and the predicted range of the amount a jury would award for the victim's injuries.
![[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
