Introduction
Wrongful death arises when an individual perishes due to inattentiveness or delinquency of another person, establishment or entity. People acting on wrongful death are the decedent’s close affiliates encompassing the surviving partner, parents or children. Every state possesses a unique set of statues that are the main procedures during a wrongful death but the most used encompass scenarios when the decedent’s personal representatives convey wrongful death suit. The personal representative also presents the injuries involved, pain experienced, suffering that the plaintiff and decedent underwent together with the involved costs before the decedent’s death. Damage rewards from the actions goes to the estate, various parties, as the decedents will’ indicate and the estate. In order for “a wrongful death” basis of action to be successful, there must be death of an individual caused by negligence and a surviving member undergoing pain attributable to the decedent’s death (Anderson & Gardner, 2009).
Facts
On 23 January 2012, the plaintiff, 23, a retired guardian was driving in Wingdale on Old Route 32 adjacent to the intersection near the Cricket Hill Road. The decedent was a front-seat traveler. As the plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection, its front collided with the coming truck making a leftward turn towards Cricket Hill Road. The plaintiff experienced hip, rib, leg and foot injuries while his wife died. The plaintiff sued the vehicle’s driver, County and the driver’s defendant on behalf of the decedent’s estate and as a family member. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was inattentive in his vehicles operation and blamed that the county for its careless upkeep of intersection since his pitiable intersection view was attributable to overgrown vegetation poorly maintained by the county (Air Force, 2011).
Injury
The accident resulted to the death of plaintiff’s wife leaving her husband and five children. As such, there should be recovery of damages to her estate, incurred funeral expenses, future forfeiture of household facilities and the costs of the injuries that the plaintiff experienced. The plaintiff also made claims for his previous and forthcoming suffering (Air Force, 2011).
According to expert witness, Dr. Griffins, the plaintiff got various injuries to his hip born, foot and leg because of the motor vehicle crash, which also resulted to the death of plaintiff’s wife. The expert witness, Dr. Griffins, alleges that on 23 January 2012, the plaintiff was driving in Wingdale on Old Route 32 adjacent to the intersection near the Cricket Hill Road. The decedent was seating in a front-seat when the plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection. Its front collided with the coming pick up that was making a leftward turn towards Cricket Hill Road. The plaintiff was unconscious for some few weeks in a hospital where the doctor diagnosed mental discourse as well as leg, foot and hip sprain with serious pain. At first, the plaintiff’s pain experienced in his leg, hip and foot reduced, but with time, he started to experience the same pain, which led the proposal for surgery (Garland, 2011).
Expert witness alleges that the plaintiff’s accident was attributable to the truck driver’s negligence and recklessness (Air Force, 2011). He says that the truck driver was careless in his driving because his motor vehicle was moving at a risky and extreme speed. The extreme speed led to collision since he could not control it. As such, he failed to scrutinize required road safety stipulates and precautions for him to manage the vehicle. Expert witness continues that the truck driver failed to lookout carefully for other vehicles that were approaching the intersection thus causing the collision that left the plaintiff badly injured and his wife dead.
The rendering expert witness equally indicated that it was the carelessness and negligence of the defendant that led to the plaintiff receiving painful and permanent injuries on his body, suffering mental anguish, emotional distress and reducing his gratification level. He alleges that for the plaintiff to lessen the pains and injuries he underwent frequent medical treatment increasing his medical expenditures and expenses. The accident made the plaintiff to stop participating in his daily routine making him lose earnings. The expert witness insists that had it not been for the recklessness and negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff would have shunned suffering all the losses (Air Force, 2011).
Finally, expert witness alleges that the poor management of the intersection by the county also contributed to the plaintiff’s accident. He says that intersection had overgrown vegetation, which made the plaintiff’s vision blur thus disabling his vision, which led to collision with the speeding truck. He insists that if the intersection could be clear, the plaintiff would have shunned the truck thus escaping from the tremendous loss.
The first fact witness, Mr. Bolton of Avenue park estate, was driving in Wingdale on Old Route 32 adjacent to the intersection near the Cricket Hill Road just behind the Plaintiff 23’s car during the collision. Mr. Bolton alleges that the truck, which collided with the claimant’s car was over-speeding while making the left turn towards the Cricket Hill road where the plaintiff was coming from. He says that the mishap could be stoppable if the truck driver would have observed all the safety measures. He concludes that the carelessness of the truck driver is the main cause of the plaintiff’s hurting, suffering and loss of his wife. He added that after the accident, the ambulance transported the plaintiff to the hospital when unconscious and his wife died on the spot. People who were interested in knowing more on the situation crowded the accident scene (Rapalie, 2007).
Mr. Bolton also apportions the blame to the county. He says that the road intersection is very unkempt making it challenging for vehicles approaching from dissimilar directions to view the way clearly. He says that the plaintiff would have avoided the crash if his view had been unblemished. He would have dodged pitfalls consequently avoiding the demise of his wife.
The second fact witness was Mr. Bruce, a pedestrian who was waiting for pedestrian signal to turn green on pedestrian sidewalk isle at the time of the accident. The second fact witness saw the plaintiff car making a right turn from the Cricket Hill road at the intersection where it bumped into a truck making a left spin towards the Cricket Hill Road. The second fact witness blames the truck driver because he was to be careful while driving by not over speeding and paying full thought to the road for him to avoid such accidents. He says that the truck driver was supposed to drive at recommended speed and control the vehicle so that he avoids collision (Air Force, 2011).
The witness, Mr. Bruce insists that due to improper attention while driving, bad lookout and failing to follow the traffic laws led to the truck driver not controlling the collision. Because of the truck driver’s slackness, the plaintiff suffered physical injuries causing him long lasting mental anguish and loss of his wife. The witness also blames the County for failing to maintain the intersection thus resulting to poor view, which caused the collision.
As a defense attorney, I will impeach the first Expert witness as irrelevant because the witness was not at the accident scene during collision. Therefore, his testimonies will not make any effect to the lawsuit as they depend on indirect information. Expert witness is not a profession in this field because he has deficiencies in knowledge and skills concerning such a lawsuit. There are also instances of inadequate evidence and the expert presented data are unreliable (Air Force, 2011).
I will impeach the first and second fact witness as inappropriate because the first witness was driving his car and the second witness was focusing on traffic lights. Therefore, all their attentions were directed to unlike directions and not the plaintiff’s view. These witnesses issued assumptions because they described the truck driver as careless and negligent yet they never met him in person. Finally, these witnesses focused on their personal opinions and feelings instead of considering any actual information on the reputation of the truck driver (Air Force, 2011).
Conclusion
When dealing with a motor vehicle complaint on wrongful death, it is vital to express to the board when the lawsuit involves a lasting injury thus address the total period the plaintiff will suffer from the injuries. It is also crucial to convey that though the plaintiff reward will be compensated instantaneously, it should encompass the total future suffering of a plaintiff. If employment is the main cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, the compensation should emanate from the workers compensation insurance to cater for the treatment costs.
References
Air Force. (2011). Court-Marital Report of the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. Lexington, UK: LLMC
Anderson, T. & Gardner, T. (2009). Criminal Evidence: Principle and Cases. Florence, KY: Cengage Learning
Garland, N. (2011). Criminal evidence. (6th Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill
Rapalie, S. (2007). A Treatise on the Law of Witnesses. Buffalo, NY: Wm. S. Hein Publishing.