Scientific evidence is today more convincing than eye-witness testimony to a jury, a fact only reinforced by the many death-row inmates exonerated by scientific DNA evidence. Even in a seemingly straightforward motor vehicle accident case, objective scientific facts relating to the case must be analyzed with regard to their impact on liability. Specifically, oftentimes the injuries sustained by the plaintiff are inextricably intertwined with the determination of fault in the accident to the point that the nature and extent of a victim’s injuries show how an accident actually occurred.
This type of proof is easy to offer in venues in which trials are unified: that is, where trials are joint on the issue of liability and damages, as in the First Department counties, Manhattan and the Bronx. In venues in which trials are presumptively bifurcated (everywhere except Manhattan and the Bronx), the only way to use the injury as proof of liability is to move for a unified trial. Where the nature and extent of a plaintiff’s injuries have an important bearing on the issue of liability, it is reversible error for a court to deny the unification of the issues of liability and injury.1 In these situations, the plaintiff’s attorney must make a motion to the court for a unified trial.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
