Is it Required to Put the Settlement on the Record

The process of filing a personal injury claim in New York can be somewhat difficult to follow, especially if you have never filed or have been involved in a personal injury claim before. Moreover, the legal terms associated with personal injury claims can be hard to understand for injury victims and their families. The process of filing a personal injury claim in New York can be somewhat difficult to follow, especially if you have never filed or have been involved in a personal injury claim before. Moreover, the legal terms associated with personal injury claims can be hard to understand for injury victims and their families. In this post, we have defined the most important legal terms associated with personal injury claims so that you can understand the process of filing a claim and recovering damages from the at-fault party. Plaintiff The plaintiff is the person who files a tort claim (also known as a personal injury claim or a civil lawsuit) against another person or entity in order to get compensation for their injuries and/or monetary losses. Defendant The defendant is the person or entity against whom the claim is filed. Negligence It is defined as the failure of a person to exercise a level of care that a reasonably competent and prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances. Liability It is defined as the state of being responsible for the injuries or losses caused to a person. If a person is deemed liable in a personal injury claim, it means that they can be held financially responsible for the plaintiff’s losses. The concept of liability is based on the principle that under any given situation, people have certain responsibilities and are expected to conduct themselves in such a way that their actions (or failure to act) do not harm others. It is undoubtedly the most important aspect of an NYC personal injury claim, as the plaintiff can recover damages only if they manage to establish the liability of the defendant. Vicarious Liability It is a legal doctrine under which a party with supervisory authority can be held liable for the actions of their subordinates – if it is found that the former had the right, duty, and ability to control the actions of the latter, but failed to do so. It’s generally applicable in commercial truck accident claims, where the truck company can be held liable for the driver’s actions. For instance, if a truck driver is forced to drive for more than 14 hours by the trucking company – in violation of hours of service rules – and if the driver causes an accident as a result of fatigue, the trucking company can be held liable, since the accident could have been prevented if the trucking company had not overworked the driver. Proximate Cause It is the event or the actions of a party without which the plaintiff would not have been injured. It is commonly referred to as the ‘but for’ rule. If the accident would not have happened and if the plaintiff would not have been injured, but for the actions of the defendant, the defendant’s actions (or failure to act, depending on the circumstances) can be considered the proximate cause for the accident. It should be noted that proximate cause need not necessarily be the only cause of the accident. Under New York personal injury law, a defendant’s actions can be considered the proximate cause if they substantially contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. For example, if Driver A is rear-ended by Driver B, and if Driver A crashes into a tree and suffers injuries as a result, Driver B’s actions can be considered the proximate cause, even though Driver A was injured as a result of crashing into the tree. This is because it is reasonable to assume that Driver A would not have crashed into the tree but for the actions of Driver B. Compensatory Damages It refers to the amount of compensation given to the plaintiff in an NYC personal injury claim. It generally covers the economic as well as non-economic losses caused to the plaintiff as a result of the accident. Common economic losses that a plaintiff can be compensated for include: Cost of medical treatment Cost of rehabilitation Cost of long-term care (if the injury leads to a physical or cognitive disability) Lost wages Loss of earning capacity Property damage Common non-economic losses that a plaintiff can be compensated for include: Pain and suffering Emotional anguish Significant disfigurement Diminished quality of life Compensatory damages are awarded for the purpose of restoring the plaintiff (to the extent possible) to the position they would have been in, had it not been for the accident. Under New York law, there is no cap on the number of compensatory damages that can be awarded to a plaintiff in a tort claim. The more severe the injuries, the larger the compensation is likely to be. It should be noted that compensatory damages are not awarded based on speculations. The plaintiff has a duty to explain (with evidence) how much they have lost and stand to lose in the future due to their injuries. Only an experienced New York personal injury attorney can accurately determine the value of a claim, collect the evidence needed to prove the extent of economic and non-economic losses suffered by the plaintiff, and recover an appropriate amount of damages. This is why personal injury victims are generally advised to get legal representation as soon as they can after the accident. Punitive Damages It refers to the damages awarded to the plaintiff in addition to compensatory damages. Punitive damages are only awarded under rare circumstances, which include: If the defendant is found to have acted with malicious intent and if their actions resulted in serious, life-altering injuries for the plaintiff If the defendant is found to have acted with utter disregard for the plaintiff’s health and safety It should be noted that, unlike compensatory damages, a plaintiff is not entitled to receive punitive damages. Only the jury or judge can decide whether punitive damages should be awarded to the plaintiff and the amount of compensation to be awarded. Unlike compensatory damages, punitive damages are not meant to compensate the plaintiff for their injuries and other losses. Instead, they are awarded for the explicit purpose of punishing the defendant for their utterly reckless or malicious actions and to make sure they do not make the same mistakes again. Comparative Negligence It is a legal concept under which the plaintiff can also be held partially responsible for the accident in which they were injured or suffered monetary losses. Under New York personal injury law, the plaintiff’s compensation will be reduced based on the extent to which they were responsible for the accident. For instance, if it is deemed that a plaintiff was 30% at fault for the accident, and if they are awarded a sum of $100,000, they will only receive $70,000. This is pretty logical, right? Statute of Limitations It is the deadline within which the plaintiff is required to file a claim against the defendant. The statute of limitations for filing an NYC personal injury claim – except medical malpractice claims – is three years – starting from the date on which the accident happened. For medical malpractice claims, the statute of limitations is two years and six months from the date on which the plaintiff was injured or harmed. Discovery It is one of the steps involved in a New York personal injury case. It is a process through which both the parties (the plaintiff and the defendant) can exchange case-related information with each other. It is done to make sure one party does not blindside or ambush the other party at the trial by producing a surprise witness or documentary evidence that the other party is not aware of. Settlement It is the process through which the plaintiff and the defendant can settle their case out of court and avoid a lengthy and expensive legal battle. During settlement negotiations, the plaintiff is usually represented by their New York personal injury attorney, and the defendant is represented by the insurance advisor assigned by their insurance provider. If the plaintiff’s attorney and the insurance adjuster manage to reach an agreement, the case will be settled out of court. The plaintiff will accept the settlement amount offered by the insurance company and in return give up their right to sue the defendant. If, on the other hand, they do not manage to reach an agreement, the case will proceed to trial. Judgment It is the official decision made by the jury or the judge in a New York personal injury case. It usually specifies the following things. Whether the defendant is liable for the injuries and other losses suffered by the plaintiff Whether the plaintiff’s own actions contributed to the accident The amount of compensation that must be paid to the plaintiff The number of punitive damages that must be paid to the plaintiff (if awarded by the jury or the judge) Looking to File a New York Personal Injury Claim? We Can Help You! At Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP, we are committed to helping personal injury victims get the compensatory damages (and punitive damages, if applicable) they deserve. Over the last 98 years, we have successfully handled a large number of personal injury claims and have recovered over a billion dollars in damages for our clients. We have the expertise, resources, and connections needed to take up all kinds of personal injury cases – regardless of how complicated they might be. To discuss your case with one of our experienced New York personal injury lawyers, call Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP today at 212-344-1000 or contact us online for a free and confidential consultation.

A lawyer asks the judge to reconsider his ruling. The judge refuses and inform the attorney that if he does not like his ruling he can take it up on appeal. Can a judge say this? The Judge can Refuse to Reconsider The answer is yes; a judge can make a snap decision and stick to it such as this. For instance, your lawyer is questioning a witness, the defense objects to a particular question, the judge says, "objection sustained", and stops the witness from answering the question. Here the judge has made a snap decision about whether your lawyer can question the witness about a particular topic. If your lawyer does not like the judge's ruling, can he ask the judge to reconsider his ruling? Yes, you lawyer can ask the judge to reconsider. However, what is the likelihood of the judge reversing his decision, immediately after he has ruled that the lawyer cannot ask that question? The chances are extremely small. This is just human nature and it is unfortunate. When your lawyer raises the argument for the judge to reconsider, and starts to whine and complain, what is the judge most likely going to do? This can be compared to a child, who is clearly upset and complaining, and the adult ignoring the child. However, here the judge cannot ignore the attorney and has to provide guidance. The judge can tell the attorney that if he does not like his ruling, the attorney can take this up on appeal, if he loses the case. The Judge has to make Quick Decisions During the course of trial when an attorney objects, the judge has to make a snap decision about whether to allow a particular question to be answered, or whether to allow a particular piece of evidence to be presented to the jury. Now, if the lawyer has case point to support his position, he can present it to the judge. The lawyer can tell the judge that he has certain case(s) on point that supports his position about why he can ask the witness these particular questions. This will put the judge in a bit of a quandary. Should he take the time to actually read and analyze the cases that the lawyer is talking about, or should he simply stick to the ruling that he has already given and allow the case to move forward. Well, it can go either way, and it will mainly depend on the case and point raised by the lawyer. The Judge is More Likely to Reconsider if the Lawyer Presents Case Points If the lawyer is able to put forward important case points while asking the judge to reconsider, then there is more likelihood of the judge reconsidering his decision. The judge will at least listen to what the attorney has to say, and he might even take time to analyze the case points presented by the lawyer who wants to derive this information out of the witness, if the judge feels they are important to the case. However, the judge is also entitled to simply reject all case points, adhere to his original ruling, and inform the attorney to proceed.

Judge Controls all Trial Proceedings At a trial of a personal injury case, which can be an accident case, medical malpractice case, or even a wrongful death case, the judge will be in charge of supervising and controlling the courtroom. In every instance, the judge will instruct the jury not to discuss the case amongst themselves during any of the breaks. The judge will make it clear to the jurors that they are not to talk about the case during the breaks and when they leave for the day. Why does the judge give this instruction to the jury? Why Jurors cannot Discuss the Case during Breaks? The judge gives this particular instruction because the jury has not yet heard all the information regarding the case, they have not yet heard all the testimonies, they have not yet heard all the legal arguments, and most importantly the jury has not yet been informed about the legal instructions that the judge gives them at the very end of the trial. The judge does not want the jurors to start discussing the situation between themselves, what the different testimonies might mean. One juror might ask the other, what he thinks about a particular witness and his testimony. The jurors are likely to have many questions based upon their initial gut feelings, and the moment people start talking about their impressions, it will color their thinking. It is like when you come out after seeing a movie and you listen to people giving their opinions about the movie, and this may change what you originally thought about the movie when it ended. During the trial, the jury goes to the jury room for a break, and the jurors will sit and chat with each other. In such a scenario, they are most likely to talk about the case. Therefore, specifically judge will instruct jury not to discuss the case amongst themselves during these breaks. The judge does not want the jury to go ahead and get initial impressions from different jurors, as each one chimes in their opinions about a particular witness or about a particular cross-examination question and so on. The judge does not want the jurors to talk about the case because they have not heard everything yet. This does seem sort of illogical but it is the rules. What if a jury member wants to confirm someone’s name or a fact about the testimony? You have to take exceptional notes so you do not have these questions. Yes, this does seem like backward logic but it is the rules. The judge will instruct jurors to hold their thoughts until the very end of the case. Once they have heard the entire case, all the testimonies, and all the legal instructions pertaining to the case, then they can go to the jury room and begin deliberating. This is the time when they can start exchanging ideas about who is right and who is wrong, and whether the victim has been able to show them that he is more likely right than wrong. Therefore, in all civil matters in New York, the judge will instruct jury not to discuss the case amongst themselves until the end of trial. Then it is time for them to deliberate over the case.