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

Accidents take place. That is also true for accidents involving motor vehicles and pedestrians. Lawyers skilled in dealing with pedestrian injury cases are knowledgeable about not only the technical factors of the accident, the insurance problems, and the medical aspects of the injuries to the pedestrian, but also the psychology of the people concerned. Attorneys understand that individuals on occasion remember incidents in keeping with their own self-image, an image of an individual who is a mindful driver, of a person not able to be responsible for causing an injury to others. These attorneys also realize that sometimes all you need to bring out the truth is a little bit of common sense. Consider the example presented by the following:

In this case a 75 year old male pedestrian was struck while going across the street to get back to his double-parked car. The potential defendant was driving a van at the time of the accident. He said that the victim came out suddenly 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. He sustained a fracture to his shoulder, a fracture to his collarbone, and a fracture to his ankle. He needed screws and a metal plate inserted into his ankle. An productive person before the accident his life changed significantly 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. No such evidence was ever offered by the defendant. The only damage that was noted was a cracked windshield - as would be expected from the front of the van striking the pedestrian and inconsistent with the pedestrian hitting the side of the van. Yet, 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.

The above demonstrates how hard defendants will stay away from responsibility for an accident, even when they have sufficient insurance to cover them. From time to time they just view the facts from a point of view that absolves them of fault. Sometimes they remember the accident differently from how it really took place. Sometimes they lie.

Regrettably, there are occassions when the claims adjuster for the driver's insurance company accepts the driver's version despite being faced with a clear showing of liability of the part of the defendant. When this takes place there is usually little choice but to take the case to trial.

In these circumstances it is often feasible to establish whether there is a need to use an accident reconstruction expert. For some situations, it is completely crucial for example when not using an expert would make it extremely difficult for the jury to comprehend how the accident happened. 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 necessary 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. When it is not necessary it may be better to let the jury go through the evidence and see through the account given by the defendant.