subject: Seventy One Year Old Female Pedestrian Endures Several Fractures In Accident And Recovers $300,000 [print this page] Seventy One Year Old Female Pedestrian Endures Several Fractures In Accident And Recovers $300,000
It is absolutely astonishing the way individuals are able to try to absolve themselves of responsibility in matters even though they are obviously the reason the accident occured.
Consider the documented lawsuit in which a seventy one year old female was struck in a a motor vehicle accident. She was a pedestrian. She who was struck by a van. As a result of the accident she suffered a fracture to the right occipital bone (the bone located at the lower back of the skull). She additionally suffered fractures to her right knee. This injury needed an open reduction with internal fixation. Further, she sustained a subdural hematoma. The woman was half-way through a crosswalk. The crosswalk was controlled by a traffic light when she was struck. The vehicle that struck the victim had been stopped for a red light prior to going into the intersection. The woman claimed that as she started crossing the crosswalk the traffic control signal was steady and turned to a flashing red light as she was in the crosswalk and was struck by the van.
The defendant claimed that he did not go the intersection until the light turned green for him. The defendant actually put together testimony from 2 bystanders who said that the light was green for the driver at the time the accident took place. A number of people, even certain attorneys, would probably look at this as a claim that would in all probability end in a defense verdict. Thus, many lawyers would turn a case like this down. The bulk of the evidence appears to be against the victim. Or is it?
There was a law firm that did agree to represent the victim. They took the position that despite whether the defendant had a green light or not, the victim was already in the middle of the crosswalk and so had the right of way at the time the driver drove into the crosswalk. He ought to have been paying attention on the victim in front of him rather than with the traffic light to his left. With this argument the law firm reported that it was able to attain a settlement shortly before trial for $300,000, the full extent of the defendant's insurance policy.
In this lawsuit the defendant and the insurance company blamed the plaintiff for the accident. Essentially they took the position that, whether or not there was a pedestrian halfway across a crosswalk, the moment the light turned green the defendant and not the victim in the crosswalk, had the right of way. They essentially took the position that, if a pedestrian takes too long to cross the street, drivers can get a free if they hit that pedestrian.
The matter settled before trial. But, as noted by the law firm that represented the victim, it settled only shortly before trial. Lawyers who represent injured pedestrians with lawsuits where the driver takes this kind of posture must put together the claim as if they will have to take it to trial. It is sometimes the only thing that will persuade the defendants to finally settle the matter. In practice this means not letting the defendants position the lawsuit. In practice one way this may be accomplished is by understanding the impact, or consequence, of the argument made by the defendants and demonstrating how this would in reality lead to a very undersireable outcome. Doing this may turn a loser into a winner.
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
