Accidents take place. That is also true for accidents involving motor vehicles and pedestrians. Lawyers skilled in taking on pedestrian injury lawsuits are knowledgeable about not only the mechanics of the accident, the insurance problems, and the medical aspects of the injuries to the pedestrian, but also the psychology of the people involved. This occurs even when the individual has insurance that could fully cover the range of any possible recovery. Hence the motive is never clear. It is up to the attorney who reviews the claim on behalf of the hurt pedestrian to identify what evidence, is available to rebut the version of the accident told by the potential defendant.

In this case a seventy five year old male pedestrian was hit while going across the street to get back to his double-parked car. The potential defendant was driving a van at the time of the accident. He maintained that the man came out suddenly from the middle of two cars that were parked at the side of the street and that the man in fact ran into the car causing damage to the its side. The pedestrian suffered various fractures such as fractures to his shoulder, collarbone and to his ankle for which he required surgery that consisted of the attachment of screws and a metal plate. The seventy five year old pedestrian had been an active man prior to the accident. He was even working as a messenger. Subsequent to the accident his lifestyle changed considerably.

The law firm that represented the pedestrian requested that the defense produce evidence of the damage to the side of the van professed by the driver. No such evidence was ever provided by the defendant. The sole damage that was documented was a cracked windshield - consistent with the front of the van hitting the pedestrian and inconsistent with the pedestrian hitting the side of the van. Yet, the defendant’s insurance company refused to settle the case. The law firm helping the pedestrian documented that it went forward to trial where it attained a $475,000 verdict for the pedestrian.

The above displays how hard defendants will stay away from blame for an accident, regardless of whether they have adequate insurance to cover them. Sometimes they just view the facts from a point of view that absolves them of fault. At times they recall the accident differently from how it actually took place. Sometimes they lie.

Regrettably, there are occasions when the claims adjuster for the driver’s insurance company accepts the driver’s version even after being confronted with a clear showing of fault of the part of the insured. When this occurs there is usually little choice but to take the case to trial.

Determining whether to use an accident reconstruction expert for a claim is a matter of judgment. There are times when the use of an expert is absolutely necessary and experience should guide the attorney in figuring out when to use that expert. There are variables that can alter 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 needed if without the testimony of one the jury would not be able to determine the way the accident actually happened and the worth of the case merits the expense. If it is not necessary it might be better to let the jury go through the evidence and see through the account given by the defendant.