71 Year Old Suffers Several Fractures In Motor Vehicle Accident And Gets $300,000

It is truly incredible how in which people can deny blame in cases when they are clearly the reason the accident occurred.

For example, look at one reported case in which a seventy one year old female was struck in a a motor vehicle accident. The woman was a pedestrian. She who was hit by a van and sustained a a fracture to the right occipital bone (the bone located at the lower back of the skull). The woman additionally suffered fractures to her right knee. Her knee injury needed an open reduction with internal fixation. The trauma from the impact also triggered a collection of blood in the brain. She was half-way through a crosswalk. The crosswalk was controlled by a traffic light when she was struck. The van that struck the victim had been stopped for a red light prior to entering the intersection. The plaintiff alleged that at the time she entered the crosswalk she had a steady go signal which turned to a flashing red light as she was in the crosswalk and was hit by the van.

The driver took the position that he only drove the intersection after the light turned green for him. The driver actually produced two witnesses who said that the light was green for the driver when the accident took place. Many people, even some lawyers, might look at this as the type of claim that would most likely end in a defense verdict. Therefore, many lawyers would decline to represent the victim in such a lawsuit. The facts are against the plaintiff. Or are they?

There was a law firm that did agree to represent the victim. They took the position that regardless of whether the defendant had a green light or not, the pedestrian was already in the middle of the crosswalk and hence had the right of way when the driver entered the crosswalk. He should have been paying attention on the victim in front of him instead of the traffic light to his left. By taking this strategy the law firm reported that it was able to attain a settlement shortly before trial for $300,000, the full extent of the driver's insurance policy.

In this lawsuit the driver and the insurance company blamed the plaintiff for the accident. Essentially they claimed that, whether or not there was a person already in the crosswalk, the moment the light went green the defendant and not the victim in the crosswalk, had the right of way. They essentially took the position that, if a person is too slow in crossing the street, drivers can get a free if they hit that pedestrian.

The case settled before trial. Yet, as noted by the law firm that handled the lawsuit, it settled only briefly prior to trial. Attorneys who help victims with lawsuits where the driver takes this kind of posture must put together the claim as if they will need to take it to trial. It is sometimes the only thing that will lead the defendants to finally settle the lawsuit. In practice this means not allowing the defendants position the lawsuit. In practice one method for doing this is to take the impact, or consequence, of the argument made by the defendants and demonstrating that such a position would in reality lead to a highly undesirable outcome. That way it may be possible to turn a loser into a winner.