It is simply amazing the way in which individuals can try to absolve themselves of responsibility in cases when they are plainly at fault for having caused an accident.

For example, look at one reported matter in which a 71 year old female was the victim of a motor vehicle accident. She was a pedestrian who was hit by a van. As a result of the accident she suffered a fracture to the right occipital bone (the bone located at the lower back of the skull). The woman additionally endured fractures to her right knee. Her knee injury required an open reduction with internal fixation. Further, the victim sustained a subdural hematoma. She was half-way through a crosswalk. The crosswalk was controlled by a traffic light when she was struck. The vehicle that hit the victim had been stopped for a red light before going into the intersection. The woman alleged that at the time she started crossing the crosswalk the traffic control signal was steady and turned to a flashing red light during the time she was in the crosswalk and was hit by the driver.

The driver claimed that he did not go the intersection until the light turned green for him. The driver even produced two bystanders to state that the light was green for the driver at the time the accident took place. A lot of people, even some lawyers, might look at this as the type of claim that would most likely end in a defense verdict. Hence, many attorneys would decline to represent the victim in such a lawsuit. The facts are against the plaintiff. Or are they?

There was a law firm that did agree to represent the victim. The strategy they took with the case was to argue that despite whether the defendant had a green light or not, the plaintiff was already in the middle of the crosswalk and thereby had the right of way when the defendant entered the crosswalk. He ought to have been focused on the victim in front of him rather than with the traffic light to his left. By taking this strategy the law firm reported that it was succeeded in getting a settlement a little bit before trial for $300,000, the full extent of the van’s insurance policy.

In this lawsuit the defendant and the insurance company took the position that the fault for the accident rested on the pedestrian. In effect they claimed that, irrespective of whether there was a person halfway across a crosswalk, the moment the light went green the defendant and not the pedestrian in the crosswalk, had the right of way. They quite simply argued that, if a person takes too long to cross the street, drivers can get a free if they hit that pedestrian.

Not surprisingly the lawsuit settled prior to trial. But, as noted by the law firm that represented the victim, it settled only shortly before trial. Attorneys who represent victims with lawsuits where the defendants take this sort of posture must put together the case as if they will need to take it to trial. It is sometimes the only thing that will persuade the defendants to finally settle the matter. In practice this means not allowing the defendants position the lawsuit. In practice one method for doing this is to take the impact, or consequence, of the position taken by the defendants and showing that such a position would in reality go against public policy. Doing this may turn a loser into a winner.