Bicycles are a very popular method of transportation in and throughout New Jersey. Although they are excellent for exercise, recreation and commuting, they, unfortunately, do not provide a great deal of protection when car accidents occur. This is especially true when a bicyclist is struck by a car, as even the best helmet cannot do much to protect the rest of the cyclist's body against the force of such a large and powerful vehicle.
Most New Jersey residents know that intoxication and operating a motor vehicle don't mix. Additionally, most know that driving while texting or talking on the phone are often just as effective at taking a driver's attention off the road, enabling poor decision-making processes and considerably slowing reaction times. However, many car accidents still occur every day in this state, many due to some form of distracted driving.
Improving pedestrian safety is not always an easy prospect, particularly in cases where pedestrian safety issues arise from poor infrastructure and other factors that require authorities to invest significant time and planning. Also challenging, though, is addressing safety issues rooted in poor decision-making on the part of both drivers and pedestrians.
In our last post, we spoke briefly about a case in which the issue negligence came into question in an interesting way. One of the interesting questions the case raises is: what happens in auto accident cases when there are multiple parties who are found to be negligent?
Motor vehicle accidents can become complicated by a whole host of factors, but one we’d like to look at in this and the next post is when there are multiple negligent parties. We’ll begin the discussion by mentioning a decision made last week by a panel of appellate judges. The decision was in favor of NJ Transit regarding a 2011 crash on the New Jersey Turnpike which left a woman with orthopedic injuries.
In our last post, we spoke briefly about the topic of bad faith insurance claims in New Jersey car accident cases, focusing in particular on the standard of proof in these cases. As we noted, the standard of proof in bad faith insurance cases is fairly high. Essentially, a plaintiff must prove that there is no "fair debate" about the facts or the law regarding the plaintiff's coverage.
In recent posts, we've spoken a bit about insurance law as it applies to auto accident coverage in the state of New Jersey. Auto insurance coverage, of course, is a critical resource for those injured in a car accident in New Jersey, and motorists rely on their insurance companies to deal fairly with them in paying claims.
In our last couple posts, we've been discussing the relationship between New Jersey’s no-fault insurance system and comparative negligence, focusing briefly on the issue of the right to sue. As we've noted, New Jersey’s no-fault system allows motorists to choose whether they will retain a limited or an unlimited ability to sue an at-fault motorist for non-economic damages.
In previous posts, we began looking at the issue of comparative fault as it pertains to pedestrian accidents, then moved on to broaden out the discussion to comparative fault as it relates to auto accident liability. We left off by mentioning that the difference between basic and standard auto insurance policies in New Jersey is that the former involve a limited right to sue a party for damages, while the latter involve an unlimited right to sue.
In our previous post, we briefly discussed the issue of comparative negligence as it impacts pedestrian accidents. In this and the next post, we want to discuss comparative negligence as it impacts those who are involved in auto accidents in New Jersey.