Why Defendant's Give False Testimony About Their Role In A Motor Vehicle Accident

It is not uncommon for lawyers helping victims of motor vehicle accidents to see a claim with two drivers who give radically diverse accounts of the accident. Experience on the part of the lawyer and the readiness to fully investigate the circumstances of the accident, such as personally viewing the location of the accident, can bring about a dramatically different result.

As an example, consider the following situation: an automobile going straight and a twnty-four foot box truck making a left turn crash in an intersection. The plaintiff stated that he sped up just before he went into the intersection and entered the intersection with the yellow light prior to it turning red. After the accident the driver of the truck claimed that he had a green left turn signal and that the driver of the car sped into the intersection while running a red light. The way the intersection lights were programmed a yellow light for the plaintiff would have meant a red turn arrow for the defendant.

The plaintiff, a 40 year old male, suffered numerous injuries in the accident including a head laceration, and several fractures to his forearm. The head injury required twenty staples to close. The forearm injury needed internal fixation surgery.

The law firm that represented the plaintiff victim did its own investigation of the accident scene. From its investigation the law firm plotted the sequence of the lights at the intersection. With that information and the testimony of a driver who had been stopped waiting for with a red light from the left of the truck driver, the law firm was able to show that it was not possible for the driver of the truck to have had a green light. Even if the plaintiff’s light had turned red, the light for the witness to the left of the truck would have turned green before the truck driver’s left arrow would turn green. And that witness’s light had still not turned green at the time of the accident.

At this point the law firm needed to proof the sequence of the lights. To accomplish this the law firm obtained the testimony of a Department of Transportation representative. The representative’s testimony, when put together with the testimony of the driver who was waiting for a green light from the truck driver’s left, showed that the truck driver could not have had a green left hand turn signal when he took the turn and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle.

The law firm took the claim to trial. Even though the jury found that the plaintiff was fifteen percent at fault for the accident, they apportioned 85% of the fault on the driver of the truck. After taking into account the percentage of fault allocation by the jury the law firm produced a recovery of $467,000 for the victim. The day prior to trial the insurance company refused to settle for a demand of $300,000.

As this claim demonstrates a thorough investigation of the accident scene, one that finds the evidence that will show that the accident could not have happened the way the defendant claims. This requires the experience and the common sense to know what to look for, and the resources to carry on the investigation the right way. Then it becomes a matter of putting the details together in the correct sequence.

The matter also provides an example of how insurance company adjusters can become so fixated on the insured’s version of the accident that even undeniable facts to the contrary will not convince them to settle the matter. Juries do not like to be given false testimony and they are far too smart to not recognize when the facts overwhelmingly shows that one of the parties is doing just that.

When presented with such circumstances the attorney helping the plaintiff does best by thoroughly preparing the case for trial and recover as much as possible on behalf of the plaintiff from a jury award.

To learn more about how a truck accident attorney can help you and about other vehicle accident cases including fatal car accident matters visit the websites