It is not unusual for an attorney to review a motor vehicle accident case in which the individual who is injured and wishes to pursue a claim tells one story of how the accident too place and the driver who would be the defendant in the case tells a completely different story - always one in which he or she is not at fault and is not liable for the accident. This happens even when the would-be defendant has insurance that would sufficiently cover the range the settlement or verdict is likely to fall in. So the motive is never really clear. It is up to the attorney who reviews the case on behalf of the injured individual to determine what evidence, if any, exists that they can use to disprove the version of the accident told by the would-be defendant.
Consider the example provided by the following two cases:
Case 1:
The driver in this motor vehicle accident hit a 75 year old man as he was crossing the street. The driver was driving a van at the time of the accident. He claimed that the man came out abruptly from the middle of two cars that were parked at the side of the street and that the man actually ran into the can causing damage to the side. The male pedestrian was crossing the street in order to return to his car which was double parked. He sustained 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 man prior to the accident his life changed greatly after.
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. The only damage that was documented was a cracked windshield - consistent with the front of the van striking pedestrian and inconsistent with the pedestrian hitting the side of the van. Still, the defendant's insurance company refused to settle the case. The law firm representing the pedestrian reported that it went forward to trial where it achieved a $475,000 verdict for the pedestrian.
Case 2:
The driver in this motor vehicle accident was stopped for a red light before proceeding into the intersection and hitting a pedestrian who was in a crosswalk at the intersection. The driver claimed that the light had turned green before he drove his vehicle into the intersection. He even identified two witnesses who said the driver's light was green at the time of the accident. The pedestrian who was hit ended up with a fracture to the back of the skull. She also had bleeding of the brain.
She was 71 years old. She was in the middle of the crosswalk when the vehicle hit her. Her position was that she had a go signal at the time she starting walking across the crosswalk and that it began flashing red after she was already in the crosswalk.
The law firm that represented the pedestrian did not need to rebut the witnesses produced by the driver. All they had to do was to convince the driver's insurance company adjuster that the driver was at fault even if his claim that the light had turned green before he drove into the crosswalk were true they faced a significant risk of an adverse verdict at trial. The driver was in effect claiming that as long as he had a green light he had the right to not pay attention to the road in front of him and had the right to hit a pedestrian in his way rather than waiting for the pedestrian to finish crossing the crosswalk before proceeding. The law firm reported that the insurance company settled for $300,000, the full limit of the van's insurance coverage.
The cases above are just two examples of how hard defendants will try to avoid responsibility for an accident, even when they have sufficient insurance to cover them. Sometimes they simply view the facts from a perspective that clears them of fault. Sometimes they remember the accident different from how it actually happened. Sometimes they just plain lie.
To make matters worse, insurance company adjusters seem all to ready to take their insured's version of the accident at face value and to totally discount the injured victim's version. Statistically, this makes sense especially when there are no witnesses. Deny enough claims and some of them will settle for nuisance value. Of those that do not, if the defense wins half those cases at trial the insurance companies will save millions each year.
Deciding whether to retain an accident reconstruction expert for a case is a matter of judgment. For some cases, it is absolutely necessary such as when the lack of an expert would make it impossible for the jury to understand how the accident occurred. There are factors that can make a difference in 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 necessary if without the testimony of one the jury would not be able to understand how the accident actually happened and the value of the case merits the expense.
When it is not necessary it may be better to let the jury go through the evidence and see through the story told by the defendant.
![[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
