Aurora Car Accident Litigation Process
Following a car accident, victims sometimes have to make the difficult decision to either settle or pursue car accident litigation. There are benefits to both courses of an action, but it can be difficult to make that decision alone. An attorney can help individuals decide which option works best for them and has the potential to yield the best possible outcome. Those who are interested in pursuing the Aurora car accident litigation process should speak with a qualified lawyer that could help.
Both parties are allowed to give an opening statement. The order is the plaintiff will give their opening statement first. Usually, that is done with the notion that, one, the plaintiff has the burden of proof in these cases. The plaintiff is required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence what they are saying and so they generally are the first to present an opening statement, laying forth the facts that they are going to present to establish their claim and then introducing themselves and their clients and trying to get as much credibility with the jury as they can. After that, this is when the defense attorneys will come up and do the same thing but present what they view their version of the facts to be.
What is the Preponderance of the Evidence?
A preponderance of the evidence is a less-strict standard than a criminal trial. In a criminal trial, an individual has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that none of the jurors sitting on the panel can look at the case and say, maybe the individual did not do it. That standard does not exist in civil lawsuits. What plaintiffs and their attorneys have to prove in a motor vehicle collision is preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not. If liability is not disputed, which means that they have admitted their fault, there is a trial that questions whether the defendant’s acts or omissions caused the damages that the plaintiff is claiming. In the Aurora car accident litigation process
Presenting Closing Arguments
At the close of the Aurora car accident litigation process, the plaintiff will be the first to offer their closing statement. When the plaintiff does so, it is a summation of the testimony. They refer to the summation of the facts that have been introduced and then the plaintiff asks for the compensation that they can give to the plaintiff’s attorney. The individual requests compensation that they think is just or fair. Usually, a plaintiff’s attorney will want to try to reserve some time if there is the potential of a rebuttal closing statement.
After a plaintiff presents their closing argument, the defense is entitled to present a closing argument doing the same thing as the plaintiff did where they lay forth a different version of more or less the same thing, what evidence was presented by the defense, what the weaknesses and strengths are in each party’s case, and then ask, of course, for a verdict for the defense. If the plaintiff saved time, they are entitled to give a rebuttal, trying to counter some of the defense’s arguments. It might influence the outcome of a case. The plaintiff should try to save that extra time at the end so that they can leave an impression on the jury at the end of the case. It is a common perception with a lot of jurors that what is said last, is what is best. It is the recency effect, where what they hear sticks in their mind. The last thing that a victim’s attorney wants, is for the last thing that jury hears to be about how the plaintiff does not deserve compensation for their injuries. A qualified personal injury attorney could try to achieve a positive outcome for victims who undergo the car accident litigation process.