It is simply remarkable how individuals are able to try to absolve themselves of blame in cases when they are clearly the reason the accident happened.

For example, look at one reported lawsuit in which a 71 year old woman was struck in a a motor vehicle accident. She was a pedestrian who was struck by a van. As a result of the accident she suffered a fracture of the bone which is located in the lower back portion of the skull. The woman additionally endured fractures to her right knee. Her knee injury needed an open reduction with internal fixation. Further, she suffered a subdural hematoma. She was half-way through a crosswalk that was controlled by a traffic light when she was struck. The van that struck the victim had been stopped for a red light before entering the intersection. The plaintiff alleged that at the time she entered 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 struck by the driver.

The defendant took the position that he did not enter the intersection until the light turned green for him. The defendant actually brought forth 2 witnesses who said that the light was green for the driver when the accident took place. Many people, even some attorneys, would probably look at this as the type of claim that would almost certainly result in a defense verdict. Therefore, many attorneys would decline to represent the victim in such a lawsuit. The bulk of the evidence appears to be against the pedestrian. Or is it?

One law firm did take on this case. They took the position that regardless of whether the driver 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 driver entered the crosswalk. He should have been paying attention on the victim in front of him rather than with the traffic light to his left. With this argument the law firm reported that it was succeeded in getting a settlement shortly prior to trial for $300,000, the entire extent of the defendant's insurance policy.

In this lawsuit the defendant and the insurance company blamed the plaintiff for the accident. In effect they claimed that, irrespective of whether there was a person already in the crosswalk, the moment the light turned green the driver and not the victim in the crosswalk, had the right of way. They quite simply took the position that, if a pedestrian takes too long to cross the street, drivers have no liability for running into them.

The case settled before trial. Yet, as noted by the law firm that represented the victim, it settled only briefly before trial. Lawyers who represent injured pedestrians in cases where the defendants take this type of stance must set up 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 way this may be accomplished is by understanding the impact, or conclusion, of the position taken by the defendants and showing that this would actually lead to a very undersireable outcome. That way it may be possible to turn a loser into a winner.