January 30, 2014 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Truck that caused accident identified by victim's revised affidavit---
Article provided by Mitchell Law Firm LLC
Visit us at http://www.mitchell-lawfirm.com
Multi-car collisions can have a devastating impact on the victims, and those responsible for the accident should be made to pay for the injuries and damages they cause. However, what if the vehicle that set off the motor vehicle accident is not immediately identified? What sort of evidence would be necessary to move forward with the case in that situation?
The recent Alabama Court of Civil Appeals case of Hines v. Trinity Contractors, Inc. provides an example.
"Phantom" truck causes wreck
The victim was traveling northbound on Interstate 59 in the left lane when she lost control of her vehicle, causing it to go down into the median and back up into oncoming traffic in the southbound lane. Upon entering the southbound lane, her vehicle was struck a black pickup truck, which was catapulted and then hit by another vehicle.
The victim filed a complaint alleging that a vehicle owned by a construction contractor company had caused the victim's vehicle to swerve off the road and into the median. This vehicle, initially referred to as a "phantom vehicle" in her first affidavit, was later identified more precisely in a second affidavit by the victim. The victim asserted claims of negligence and wantonness against the contractor.
The contractor made a motion for summary judgment--a motion to dismiss the case before the victim even had her day in court--arguing that the evidence indicated that the "phantom vehicle" was not the contractor's vehicle, and that the victim's subsequently revised memory did not constitute enough evidence to make the case. The trial court agreed, granting the summary judgment. The victim appealed.
Was the victim's testimony inconsistent?
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals noted that to reverse the trial court's summary judgment, it must determine that there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the truck that ran the victim off the road belonged to the contractor.
The court stated that when seemingly inconsistent testimony, like the victim's, has been clarified or read in context to reveal its consistency, the later testimony is, in fact, admissible. The statement in the victim's first affidavit that the vehicle that forced her off the highway was a rather large truck, which was white with blue writing on the side was consistent with the testimony in her later deposition and her second affidavit. In her second affidavit she explained that, although she did not recall what the blue writing said when she signed her first affidavit, after thinking further about what she had seen when the accident occurred, she was able to picture in her mind what words were written in blue on the side of the white truck and that what was written was the contractor company's name.
Because the victim clarified that apparent discrepancy, the appeals court concluded that there was substantial evidence tending to prove that the truck causing the accident could be one owned by the contractor. Thus, a genuine issue of material fact existed in this car accident case and the trial court's summary judgment was reversed, granting the victim her day in court.
Seeking the compensation you deserve
If you are injured in a serious motor vehicle accident, it is important to remember that you have legal rights, and a qualified lawyer can help ensure that those rights are protected. Seek an attorney who will take a multifaceted approach to building your personal injury claim, working hard to prove the liability of the other driver and securing the compensation you deserve.
Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com
# # #Read more Press Releases from FL Web Advantage: