How Might A Driver’s Memory Affect Determination of At-Fault Driver?

Sometimes, drivers’ memories can play a role in determination of the at-fault driver, following a collision at an intersection, one that has a traffic light.

Possible scenario

Both drivers claim to have had a green light. In fact, that is the story that each of them gives to the arriving officer. Consequently, the same officer’s report is apt to say that both drivers failed to stop at a red light. In that case, the insurance company for one of the drivers might refuse to come forward with the expected payment.

Suggested actions for insured motorist that is trying to get payment from an at-fault driver

Never agree to provide the insurance company with a recorded statement. Appreciate the fact that the plaintiff must prove that his or her version of the events is more likely than not true, when compared to the version that has been presented by the opposing party.

Gather all of the potential evidence

–Any pictures that might have been taken by a camera that was focused on the intersection-of-interest: Be sure to complete that task before the passing of 20 to 30 days, following the accident’s occurrence.
–Hire an accident reconstruction expert: Try to find one that has experience with testifying at a deposition or in a courtroom.
–Check for skid marks or debris at the accident site.
–Exam the location and the severity of the damage to each of the involved vehicles.

Those potential plaintiffs that have not yet hired a Personal Injury Lawyer in Mississauga, should give serious consideration to taking that specific action, at this point in the process. Plaintiffs that team with a lawyer, during the rest of the process, have better luck with completing one further action.

That action could entail making sure that each witness has succeeded in meeting and passing any test of credibility. Such a test might be part of an effort that was undertaken by the other side, an effort that has involved questioning one or more witnesses. During a credibility test, the opposing attorney might try to expose some questionable area of a given witness’s background.

For that reason, all of the witnesses should be cautioned against fabricating any information. Lawyers for the opposing side would be searching for any evidence of an inconsistency. A lie, no matter how small, would qualify as an example of an objectionable inconsistency. Hence, it could call into question some witness’s credibility.

Good lawyers know what sort of tactics might push a witness to come out with a tiny fib. Sometimes, an attorney tries to lead a witness into such a trap. At that point, it becomes a lawyer’s job to raise an objection, hoping that the judge sustains it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *