Defendant Who Blamed Victim For Accident Settled For $450,000 After Victim's Expert Disproved Defend

It is not unusual for someone injured in a motor vehicle accident to be presented with a defendant who denies fault. Frequently, these drivers basically place responsibility with the plaintiff for the accident. Because many motor vehicle accidents do not have any witnesses the outcome of these kinds of claims could depend on the credibility of the plaintiff as opposed to the credibility of the driver. Not surprisingly in cases where this goes on the insurance company insuring the driver will frequently align themselves with the defendant.

Attorneys experienced in dealing with such claims, most notably when the case involves major injuries to the victim, recognize that they actually do bear the burden of proving that the driver was responsible. Counting on a credibility battle is unlikely to lead to a settlement and leaves the outcome of a trial up in the air. Even though the economics of a case do not always justify using experts, in cases where the damages are enough and there is sufficient insurance coverage or there are assets that could be applied toward a recovery, it may be appropriate to do so.

Consider the documented lawsuit which arose when a truck struck a male messenger on a bicycle while the truck was attempting a right hand turn. The truck cut off the bicyclist. The front of the truck slammed into 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 bicyclist sustained fractures to his pelvis and suffered serious internal injuries. He was twenty two years old when the accident took place.

The driver maintained that he was not responsible for the accident. In what is an all too common defense position the driver ascribed responsibility to the plaintiff for the accident. As per the truck driver, he had his signal on prior to taking the turn, claimed that the plaintiff went into the intersection without stopping for the stop sign, and denied twice running over the bicyclist. The victim was clear that the defendant never used his turn signal and that the defendant could not have been paying attention when he made the turn.

The law firm that handled this claim rebutted the truck driver's account of who caused the accident using the assistance of an accident reconstruction expert. By showing that the truck did actually run over the bicyclist twice the law firm established truck driver must not have been paying attention to traffic on his right as he made the turn. Because of this, the law firm reported that the case settled for $400,000 on behalf of the victim.

If insurance company adjusters align themselves with the insured driver, generally the most effective way to convince them to reverse their view is to pesent them with independent evidence that rebuts their insured's rendition of the accident. Plus, if the adjusters continue to go by their insured's version, then the case has been fully prepared for trial. If only expert testimony might achieve that goal an experienced lawyer will weigh the cost of the expert against the probability that the expert will be able to disprove the insured's position and the forecast range of the amount a jury would give for the plaintiff's damages.

To learn more about how a bicycle accident attorney can help you and about other vehicle accident cases including pedestrian accident visit the websites