It is not rare for someone hurt in a vehicle accident to be confronted with a defendant who denies liability. Frequently, these defendants actually blame the plaintiff for the accident. Since a large number of motor vehicle accidents occur without any witnesses such claims could depend on the credibility of the plaintiff as opposed to the credibility of the driver. Attorneys who handle these types of cases find that when this happens the adjuster for the insurance company covering the defendant will often take the side of the defendant.

Attorneys experienced in litigating such cases, particularly in those that deal with significant injuries to the plaintiff, recognize that they actually do bear the load of showing that the defendant was at fault. Counting on a credibility battle is unlikely to result in a settlement and wagers on the outcome at trial. While the economics of a case do not always justify using experts, when the damages are enough and there is sufficient insurance coverage or there are assets that could be used for a compensation of the victims, it may be proper to do so.

Look at the reported claim which arose when a truck hit a male messenger on a bicycle while the truck was turning right. The truck cut off the bicyclist. The front of the truck slammed into the bicyclist knocking him down. The truck's front tire and rear tire both ran over the victim. The victim bicyclist sustained pelvic fractures and suffered severe internal injuries. The plaintiff was 22 years old at the time of the accident.

The defendant claimed that he was not responsible for the accident. As so often happens, the defense took the position that the victim was the one who was to blame for the accident. The truck driver maintained that he signaled before making the turn, maintained that the plaintiff entered the intersection without stopping for the stop sign, and denied twice running over the plaintiff. The plaintiff on the other hand, stated that the defendant did not have his turn signal on and that the defendant could not have been paying attention when he made the turn.

The law firm that handled this case rebutted the truck driver’s version of how the accident happened with the support of an accident reconstruction expert. By showing that the truck did in fact run over the bicyclist twice the law firm established defendant could not have been paying attention to traffic on his right when he took the turn. Because of this, the law firm reported that the lawsuit settled for $400,000 for the plaintiff.

When insurance company adjusters align themselves with the defendent, normally the most effective way to convince them to reverse their position is to put together independent evidence that invalidates the defendant's account of the accident. And, if the insurance company still do not reverse their position, then the case has been properly prepared for trial. When an expert is necessary to achieve that goal an experienced attorney will weigh the cost of the expert versus the probability that the expert will disprove the defendant's position and the predicted range of the amount a jury would give for the harm sustained by the plaintiff.