It is not unusual for lawyers helping victims of vehicle accidents to see a case involving 2 drivers who have radically different accounts of the accident. Experience on the part of the attorney and the willingness to thoroughly investigate the circumstances of the accident, such as personally observing the scene of the accident, may make all the difference between a successful result and a loss.

For example, consider the following case: an automobile traveling straight and a 24 foot box truck making a left turn collided in an intersection. The driver of the car, who was badly injured in the accident, stated his light was yellow as he entered the intersection. He admitted to speeding up to make the light. The driver of the truck, however, claimed that the driver of the car had been speeding and went through a red light when he entered the intersection. The way the intersection lights were programmed a yellow light for the plaintiff would have meant a red turn arrow for the defendant.

This lawsuit involved serious harm to the victim. The victim was 40 years old when the accident occurred. He suffered a number of fractures to his forearm that needed internal fixation surgery. He further sustained a head laceration that required about twenty staples to close.

The law firm that took the case on behalf of the plaintiff examined the scene of the accident. First, the lawyer became familiar with the scene of the accident (the intersection) and then learned that even if the plaintiff victim’s light had already turned red before he entered the intersection, the defendant truck driver’s left turn arrow would also have been red. This is because the next green would have been for traffic from the left of the truck. The defendant truck driver would not have the right of way until that traffic (the driver waiting to the defendant’s left) had a chance to go through the intersection.

After learning about the way lights were programmed the next step was to demonstrate the sequence. This was done by having a Department of Transportation representative testify regarding the timing and sequencing of the lights at the intersection. Combining this with the testimony of a witness who was waiting at a red light to exit the facility at the left of the truck driver that his light was still red, the law firm was able to prove that the truck ran a red left turn arrow.

The claim went to trial because the insurance company for the defendant would not settle the lawsuit. It would not settle the matter even with the evidence that the law firm had been able to put together. It would not settle the claim even for the victim’s demand of $300,000 just one day prior to the trial. Following the trial the jury apportioned 15% of responsibility for the accident on the victim and 85% of blame defendant. The law firm was able to report that after accounting for these percentages the victim recovered over four hundred fifty thousand dollars.

This case serves as an example of the importance of knowing the scene of the accident, knowing what type of facts can best serve to show the falsity of the defendant’s version of the accident, and having the resources that can be applied to gather that evidence. The details make all the difference in claims such as these.

In addition, the case shows that, under certain circumstances, even though they are at risk of an adverse jury award judgment against them, insurance companies, through their adjusters, refuse to settle a case. They sometimes side with their insured irrespective of how much the evidence refutes the insured’s story. Juries do not like to be given false testimony and they are far too intelligent to not catch when the facts overwhelmingly shows that one of the parties is doing just that.

Even though the one thing that generally will motivate an adjuster to settle a case is the fear of risking a much higher award at trial it is as if the adjuster in this case just refused to see the risk.