Accidents occur. That is also true for accidents involving motor vehicles and pedestrians. Attorneys skilled in handling pedestrian injury claims are knowledgeable about not only the mechanics of the accident, the insurance issues, and the medical issues with the injuries to the pedestrian, along with the psychology of the individuals involved. This occurs even when the individual has insurance that would adequately cover the range of any possible recovery. Thus the motive is never clear. These attorneys also recognize that sometimes all that's necessary to establish the truth is a little bit of common sense. Think about the example offered by the following:

The driver in this motor vehicle accident hit a 75 year old man as he was crossing the street in order to return to his car which was double parked. The driver was driving a van when the accident happened. He maintained that the man came out suddenly from the middle of two cars that were parked at the side of the road and that the man actually ran into the car leading to damage to the its side. He suffered 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 energetic man prior to the accident his life changed considerably after.

The law firm that represented the pedestrian asked that the defense produce evidence of the damage to the side of the van claimed by the driver. No such evidence was ever provided by the defendant. The damage that evidently did take place to her van was a cracked windshield. Despite the inconsistency in the driver’s version of the accident and the seriousness of the injuries to the victim the driver’s insurance company refused to settle the pedestrian’s claim. The law firm that handled this lawsuit took it to trial and got a verdict of $475,000 on behalf of the victim.

As the above demonstrates defendants will sometimes create versions of the accident that seem to vindicate their action at the time and put responsibility on the victim. A bit of common sense is usually all one needs to establish that the accident either could not have happened based on the driver’s version or that even if it did that version does not absolve the driver of obligation for what happened.

To complicate things, insurance company adjusters appear all to willing to take their insured’s version of the accident at face value and to fully discount the injured victim’s version. Statistically, this reasonable from a business point of view especially when there are no witnesses. Refuse a large number of claims and some of them will settle for nuisance value. Of those that do not, if the defense wins even just half those lawsuits at trial the insurance companies will save millions each year.

Choosing whether to use an accident reconstruction expert for a claim is a matter of judgment. Sometimes the use of an expert is definitely necessary but experience ought to guide the lawyer in determining when to use that expert. There are variables 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 required if without the testimony of one the jury would not be able to understand how the accident actually occurred and the value of the case merits the expense. If it is not necessary it may be better to let the jury go through the evidence and see through the story given by the defendant.